S33.E07: I Will Destroy You

[simplyme]

20 hours ago, piequinn35 said:

Please vote out Hannah, I really don't like her, the panic attack or whatever you call it and I got super annoyed when Michaela was voted out and she was saying "whaaatttt?!" 

Awww. I know lots of people dislike Hannah, but I have a soft spot for her. Her questioning of Bret was funny as hell. I like seeing a mix of people on Survivor, including those awkward, neurotic people who know they are and go for it anyways. To me, that takes guts. 

That's one of the things I like most about this season. There are a lot of very different people, but they're all trying to find ways to connect to each other. There's no one I really actively disliked.

I read the belching/farting scene's inclusion slightly differently than some other viewers. I thought the editors put it in there to increase tension as to which tribe would lose the immunity challenge, and to plant the idea that if Vanua lost that Michelle might be in trouble because she was the lone girl on a tribe of heathen men who felt a bit closer to each other. I thought the scene of Jessica talking to/about Taylor and how he might be a safer bet than Adam because he doesn't understand strategy essentially served the same purpose for Takali. To create a bit of suspense and worry about the immunity challenge and how things would play out on that tribe if they lost.

I was actually pretty impressed with the editing this episode because I felt they took the time to try and mislead us and create that tension. Okay, I also loved the shot of that lizard giving the camera the eye right after Jay floated the idea of blindsiding Michaela in a TH. Loved the lizard.

[kikaha]

On 11/3/2016 at 1:56 PM, Oholibamah said:

That said, choosing women to go over a similarly positioned man (Rachel over David, Mari over Zeke/Adam, Figgy over Taylor) is a consistent theme in Survivor that goes back to the beginning. I also don't think Jay would have made that move had Michaela been a man, and I do think white privilege and male privilege are a problem with this show. But that is a discussion for another thread. 

You're assuming what Jay would or would not have done if Michaela had been a man.   Then you use that assumption as 'evidence' of sexism/racism. 

You're also assuming the women who were booted were similarly positioned as some men.  I disagree.  Figgy was the 'brains' of Faylor...Mari had a weak social game and had not reached out well to the others... and while Rachel was unrepentantly aggressive/bossy, Dave bent over backwards with his apologies. 

ETA: I just saw this in a post on the Jay thread, where Michaela explains why Jay may have targeted her.  It has nothing to do with gender or racism, but rather Michaela letting Jay know she was targeting one of his top alliance members (Michelle) as soon as they merged.  (Thanks to Lance M for posting)...

"Michaela Bradshaw: I don't think it was a form of revenge. I think that it was because Michelle was going to be my first target after the merge, and I made the mistake of revealing that. So if Jay has a solid five, and I took out -- well, Adam took out one of them, but I was 100% down for it -- and now, going into the merge, the first person I'm talking about getting rid of is Michelle." No. 1, I'm talking too much. I should've kept my mouth shut."

Michaela put her finger on her #1 problem there.  She talked too much, and created drama/enemies, when it was totally unnecessary. 

So what supposedly was racism/sexism turned out to have a logical, compelling reason for it.  So IMO has every other boot this season. 

Edited November 5, 2016 by kikaha

[simplyme]

Also, @LanceM just posted a link in Jay's thread to an interview with Michaela where she says one reason she believes Jay targeted her then was that she was talking about taking out Michelle next. 

That info makes the timing of Jay's move MUCH more understandable for me.

[omophagia]

Finally got caught up on this episode; as one of those "every episode, live" fans, I have to say this was the most poorly edited episode I can recall. That we were shown nothing at all to suggest how Brett and Sunday knew to vote for Michaela made for a maddening episode. Did it magnify Michaela's dramatic reaction at TC? Sure.

But what I took away from it was that, while it was a right and proper blindside, it probably isn't indicative of any long-term strategic maneuvering on the parts of Jay or Will, who fell into the common trope of being threatened by a strong and/or intelligent woman, or of Brett and Sunday, who were total non-entities in making this move happen. If any of the four were being set up for an end-game run, this would have been the ideal time to lay the groundwork for that. For three of the four, that didn't happen at all, and what was shown of Jay's strategy didn't make him out to be any sort of mastermind.

Smart money remains on Michelle, I'd say, with Zeke closing in.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, omophagia said:

That we were shown nothing at all to suggest how Brett and Sunday knew to vote for Michaela made for a maddening episode.

It was probably a 4-second convo like this:  

Jay to Brett and Sunday:  "Vote Michaela.  I'm serious.  It's going down."

And if they'd shown it there would have been no suspense going into tribal.  We'd all have known the blindside was going down.  What fun is that?  

[SlackerInc]

On 11/4/2016 at 9:00 AM, peachmangosteen said:

And I really hate that people are downplaying the fact that 6 of the 7 first boots were woc and acting as if it's insane and ridiculous for people to wonder about that.

I don't recall people saying that.  If they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are calling you insane.  Aren't we allowed for our part to disagree, even scoff a bit?

On 11/4/2016 at 11:22 AM, Oholibamah said:

Rachel. Mari. Lucy. CeCe. Figgy. Michaela. Calling it "Coincidence" is willful blindness. 

See, this ("willful blindness") is a lot more like calling *us* insane than I recall coming the other direction.  What I see you guys doing is not insane, uncommon, or surprising.  It is common among people who don't have a background in math or probability.  And that is to think that if something is random, it will be equally distributed.  But in fact, if you flip a coin six times, it's unlikely to be heads-tails-heads-tails-heads-tails.  Five of six flips coming up heads is actually much more likely than the pattern I described.

Not that Survivor is (or should be) random.  And I wouldn't go as far as some have in defending all past seasons.  I have seen some clear racism in past seasons.  And one of my favorite players, frustratingly, is a WOC who was the first boot--twice.  But I see legitimate reasons for the votes this season.

And, I mean, what are you asking for?  A quota system (explicit or implicit) requiring that if the lion's share of the first few boots have been WOC, the next one must be a white guy?  Or what?

On 11/4/2016 at 0:08 PM, green said:

Also I want to thank the poster back a page or two that posted that link to the Mark Burnett article where we find out he is anything BUT a Trump supporter and MGM owns the rights to the editing room floor Trump clips from Apprentice and not him.  That he is actually very alarmed about that candidate and called him an out and out misogynist who he definitely is not supporting. 

Sorry if this was off topic but I hate when people falsely accuse someone of something like this above: "Mark Burnett is an ultra-conservative Trump supporter.  Over and out," with no proof and this being the internet it becomes a telephone game "fact" that gets repeated everywhere. I'm not a big Burnett fan at all but the guy deserves NOT to be accused of something he isn't here.  He is no saint for sure but he isn't the above either.

You are welcome, and I agree completely.

Edited November 5, 2016 by SlackerInc
Fixed quote

[violet and green]

Most seasons of Survivor have irritated me because they get the older woman who will probably not be so good in challenges out first, or there'll be a scene of cocky young things with beach bods discussing how that's the obvious first boot - while I'm screaming, no, keep them, they're interesting. But this season they have been spoiled for choice with not only out-of-shape and slow in challenges older women, but out-of-shape, slow, and lumbering in challenges older men! It's a fiesta of 'easy" early boots.

You could probably make an argument for why so and so was more of a challenge liability or all round dunderhead than so and so, but aside from Mari who I am still seething about, most of the boots pre-merge have seemed reasonable cutting of dead weight and/or tribe annoyances, like bossy Lucy who was strong and fit, or Paul who was unfit and slightly dictatorial.

I don't think Figgy was booted simply because she was a woman, but the need to keep muscle strength in for challenges would surely have factored into keeping Tayls instead of her; which was why I was surprised to see overall challenge asset Michaela booted when she was. I would have expected them to wait a bit for that.

I don't see this season as a gross display of misogyny in the boot order, but it cannot be denied a lot of women have gone out, and only one male. (Bet he's seething!) Maybe if the Millenial tribe had lost more of the early ICs they would have booted out a few more men - or maybe Hannah would have gone, and again that would be c/- lack of obvious assets in challenge situations, I would think, rather than she is a woman.

[Eolivet]

To me, this episode showed me one of the interesting things about stereotypical millennials, who are seen as much more tolerant than older generations. There's so much awareness of one's actions and words that it leads to massive overcompensating to prove someone is not racist, really. I was about to smack Jay and Will if they said the word "intelligent" one more time. "But she's intelligent!" "Yes, she's so intelligent!" I mean, "intelligent" is about two steps removed from "articulate." It made me long for the days when the guys would grunt something like "she's a girl, she's gotta go" rather than the over-the-top praise for the woman they were voting out, which started to feel a lot like pandering. I don't recall a white woman getting voted out for being too "intelligent."

Though I should've known Michaela was doomed when she started going all Big Brother Vanessa's M&Ms with the seashells.

I'm personally over stealth Michelle, though if two stealth Michelles win Survivor in a row, that would be vaguely hilarious.

[Oholibamah]

6 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I don't recall people saying that.  If they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are calling you insane.  Aren't we allowed for our part to disagree, even scoff a bit?

See, this ("willful blindness") is a lot more like calling *us* insane than I recall coming the other direction.  What I see you guys doing is not insane, uncommon, or surprising.  It is common among people who don't have a background in math or probability.  And that is to think that if something is random, it will be equally distributed.  But in fact, if you flip a coin six times, it's unlikely to be heads-tails-heads-tails-heads-tails.  Five of six flips coming up heads is actually much more likely than the pattern I described.

Not that Survivor is (or should be) random.  And I wouldn't go as far as some have in defending all past seasons.  I have seen some clear racism in past seasons.  And one of my favorite players, frustratingly, is a WOC who was the first boot--twice.  But I see legitimate reasons for the votes this season.

And, I mean, what are you asking for?  A quota system (explicit or implicit) requiring that if the lion's share of the first few boots have been WOC, the next one must be a white guy?  Or what?

You are welcome, and I agree completely.

And this argument is common of people who do not have a background in social justice work. We can run the "statistics" a million times, but people with real life experiences are attached to these dynamics. 

I'm not asking anybody to make sure one white guy is voted off for every 3 women of colour. But I don't think acknowledging that this is extreme and disconcerting is expecting too much. 

[Guest]

This is season 33.  If the boot order was entirely random, odds are that this many minorities would've been voted out early on at least one of those seasons.

I know I said it upthread, but the more minorities they cast, the more likely minorities are to be booted.  So many of them were women this season that it's not that surprising to me many are gone.  Women are popular early boots.  The men are all white this season, right?  

I wouldn't necessarily call Figgy a person of color, either, despite her Latina last name.   She looks about as ethnic as apple pie.  

[Oholibamah]

7 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

This is season 33.  If the boot order was entirely random, odds are that this many minorities would've been voted out early on at least one of those seasons.

I know I said it upthread, but the more minorities they cast, the more likely minorities are to be booted.  So many of them were women this season that it's not that surprising to me many are gone.  Women are popular early boots.  The men are all white this season, right?  

I wouldn't necessarily call Figgy a person of color, either, despite her Latina last name.   She looks about as ethnic as apple pie.  

If neither of these patterns concern you, then I don't know where else this conversation can go. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Calling someone a person of colour is not based on someone's subjective reading of their looks.

"You don't have a background in math" that's a new one for my bingo card.  I have never heard that one before.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Calling someone a person of colour is not based on someone's subjective reading of their looks.

What do the other players have to go on, that's my point.  Did they vote Figgy out because her last name ends in A?  Isn't the whole point of racism that the white people are supposedly targeting the people most physically and culturally dissimilar from themselves?  How was Figgy dissimilar from the white majority out there, besides being female?  

Edited November 6, 2016 by Guest

[simplyme]

Moved this post to the Race, Class, & Gender in Survivor thread since it had nothing to do with this episode. Sorry. :)

Edited November 6, 2016 by simplyme

[kikaha]

7 hours ago, Oholibamah said:

And this argument is common of people who do not have a background in social justice work. We can run the "statistics" a million times, but people with real life experiences are attached to these dynamics.

I'm not asking anybody to make sure one white guy is voted off for every 3 women of colour. But I don't think acknowledging that this is extreme and disconcerting is expecting too much. 

When stats support your cause (or at least you think they do), you cite them as proof.  When the stats don't back you up -- as most cited in these boards do not -- you dismiss them as "laundry lists," or not observant of "people with real life experiences."  Textbook cherry-picking. 

You say that people who don't agree with you are guilty of "willful blindness:" i.e. they are wrong and they know it but refuse to open their eyes to the 'truth' as you state it.  

You say that if people don't agree with you that certain outcomes are "extreme and disconcerting," they are unreasonable.  

Of course those stances are no longer discussion.  They are proclamations, backed up by name-calling, that make discussion about impossible.  You said it yourself: "If neither of these patterns concern you, then I don't know where else this conversation can go."  i.e. if we don't agree with you, we can't discuss it.    

[NutMeg]

I really liked this episode, despite loosing Michaela at the end, because one again we saw people making moves that make sense for them, individually.

Even before reading of Michaela's interview here, which gave one more reason why it made sense for Jay to target her, I think we got a big clue last episode that she may not have wanted to be with him long term: remember how she acted when she discovered he had found the idol? Didn't seem like someone learning that her ally had found an idol. At all.

Sorry no time to write much for now, so in short, I'd say it makes sense to eliminate someone for whom you are a useful vote but who doesn't consider you part of his/her core alliance. Before, you know, they vote you out. 

[SonSon]

So ticked about this episode, my girl Michaela is gone. Seems I'll be pulling for Hannha from now on. I can't wait until Jay feels the same sting when he's getting his torch snuffed. 

[EvilApplesauce]

I wonder if some of the dislike for Michaela is stemming from (perhaps) misinterpreting her sense of humor? Some of the things she said is pretty new slang, for instance:

- when the tribes were swapped and Michaela was clearly upset to be on a new beach / having to start over from scratch. She told Jeff "you didn't do that right" - also equal to "you're doing it all wrong", haha. It's just a tongue-in-cheek way of saying "I'm not happy with you for __". 

- her exaggerated body language at tribal council when the votes were being read: Michaela turned all the way around on her seat, and looked at the Millenials like "ohhhhh so it's like THAT, huh?! But I thought we were friends. Guess I was dead wrong!" Lol that brand of humor was made famous by the likes of Martin Lawrence and Tamar Braxton. I sincerely doubt Michaela meant to come across as being entitled. 

- Jay didn't seem intimidated by Michaela's stare, and I think he had the right idea that she wasn't threatening. She was "reading him for filth" with her stare, lol 

Just my 2 cents as a black female Millenial. As you were :)

[waving feather]

I don't think her stare was meant to be aggressive either. It was more hurt and like "Really? You would do that?" She even said something to the effect of "I thought we had a good thing going, Jay".

[violet and green]

That's why she belted the tree frond on her way out, too? Comedy Capers?

[EvilApplesauce]

1 hour ago, violet and green said:

That's why she belted the tree frond on her way out, too? Comedy Capers?

Not sure if this is meant as sarcasm or a backhanded sneer at my opinion, but I never said that Michaela wasn't angry at being blindsided by the people she thought she could trust. She "belted the tree" and that is supposedly equivalent to almost-maybe-what-if-she-was-about-to attacking her tribe? When Sandra charged after Johnny Fairplay and dropped f-bombs at the top of her lungs, would or did you consider that to be an act of aggression against her tribemate/s? Because if not, then I think you're this close to implying that it's only a problem when a black woman gets angry. And of course we all know how the stereotype goes about the angry black woman.

Edited November 7, 2016 by EvilApplesauce

[violet and green]

2 minutes ago, EvilApplesauce said:

Because if not, then I think you're this close to implying that it's only a problem when a black woman gets angry. And of course we all know how the stereotype goes about the angry black woman.

I have no idea how you made that leap.

[EvilApplesauce]

Just now, violet and green said:

I have no idea how you made that leap.

Since you didn't explain yourself when you sub-mentioned my comment, I'm not sure why you're surprised that whatever you meant to say wasn't interpreted the way you supposedly meant it.

[AliShibaz]

On 2016-11-05 at 0:41 PM, simplyme said:

Awww. I know lots of people dislike Hannah, but I have a soft spot for her. Her questioning of Bret was funny as hell. I like seeing a mix of people on Survivor, including those awkward, neurotic people who know they are and go for it anyways. To me, that takes guts. 

That's one of the things I like most about this season. There are a lot of very different people, but they're all trying to find ways to connect to each other. There's no one I really actively disliked.

<snip>

 

I want to say I found it very interesting that out of all the players this season, Hannah chose to target Brett - both in public and in private.  Seems to me that is quite a rare kind of event. I would guess that most people who actively target someone, do it in either public or private - but very rarely is it done i both ways. Hannah must have a very big (I was going to say "hard-on" but I can't find any kind of simile that fits and most any other words or phrases just make me sound dumb).

I found that development to be fairly ironic because Brett was the one person who comforted Hannah and stayed with her and tried to help her when she suffered her mysterious attack (I have quite a few synonyms for the name of that attack. But they all make me look very mean-spirited).

I've recently discovered the Eastern concepts of kharma and dogma. Kharma seems to mean that every living person receuves consequences for every action they perform - both good and bad consequences for both good and bad actions. Seems to me that describes the world as a very fair place. But, this world sure doesn't seem like a very fair place to me. Of course, that may just be due to my self-centered nature.

I hope future events will clearly demonstrate just how much Hannah prefers to choose good actions over bad actions or vice versa. I just wonder if people can ever be certain they know the truth about what kind of actions other people choose and what kind of consequences they received for those actions. I have a feeling that we are probably not entitled to learn just what consequences people had to endure for what actions.

Edited November 7, 2016 by AliShibaz

[Guest]

Asking him about his job was targeting him and a bad action she deserves future punishment for?  

[AliShibaz]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Asking him about his job was targeting him and a bad action she deserves future punishment for?  

 

You question whether asking Brett about his job was targeting him. I thought her intent was clear. I thought it was to target Brett and have him voted out.  Are you seriously unsure that asking Brett about his job was targeting him?  She seemed to be planting the seeds to have Brett voted out and since several other players began to discuss voting him out after discussions with her, I think it's very clear that Hannah is trying to have him voted out. 

Do you see her questioning Brett as something that she did with benevolent motives towards him? Or do you think she was trying to have the rest of the players know he was a cop so that they could all appreciate Brett and welcome him into their alliance? I think her intent is to have him voted out. Do you really think she has friendly intentions towards Brett?

Switching gears, I never said that was a bad action on Hannah's part. I think it was a part of the game and I would characterize that action as "neutral" since everyone present had signed up to play this game and they all are aware the motto is "Outwit, Outlast, Outplay". Trying to have other players voted out is not generally seen as a morally "harmful" or "beneficial" act. Seems to me that is just part and parcel of the way this game is played. You know, "Outwit, Outlast, Outplay".

However, I don't mind telling you my true feelings about this. I think Hannah has definitely engaged in other morally bad actions. Bad actions that were truly nasty and performed with evil intent towards others. Specifically, badgering Zeke and Adam (I think it was Adam) despite their many, many protestations they did not want to discuss the matter at that time was a much better example of one of Hannah's bad actions. 

I suppose you might conclude that she did not act with evil intent by badgering them. Despite the fact they repeatedly told her they did not want to discuss the matter and repeatedly asked her to stop bothering them, she just didn't realize they did not want to discuss the matter with her. Surely that is not your conclusion. Is it?

I would be certain that you could not have concluded that she was acting with some positive and caring "good intent" when she was behaving the way she did. Is that your conclusion?

Edited November 7, 2016 by AliShibaz

[Alapaki]

I think there is a common thread amongst many of the bootees thus far.  But it isn't necessarily race/gender.  I posted this comment in the Ep. 04 thread (the ep where David played his HII for Jess):

Quote

 

IMO, that was just stupid gameplay which, for me, isn't outweighed by the dramatic outcome.

Paul went home because he couldn't help swinging his dick about being the leader of the alliance.  That's textbook Survivor stupidity.

Then, after Paul is toppled (in a move instituted by Jess), Lucy is worried about Jess swinging her (figurative) dick.  So what does Lucy do?  Lucy starts swinging her own (figurative) dick!

Jesus Christ!  Is "subtle" a concept that died with the Baby Boomers? (#generationalgeneralization!)

 

And I think that Michaela fits that trend to a T.  From gloating over Figgy's elimination, and thus practically declaring that there will be no Millennial Reunion post-merge (or at least previewing what she sees as the pecking order therein), to her whole shell/rock diagram of "the numbers" going forward.

The common thread this season is that overtly attempting to establish yourself as the one calling the shots is guaranteed to put a target on your back.

[simplyme]

1 hour ago, AliShibaz said:

You question whether asking Brett about his job was targeting him. I thought her intent was clear. I thought it was to target Brett and have him voted out.  Are you seriously unsure that asking Brett about his job was targeting him?  <snip>

Do you see her questioning Brett as something that she did with benevolent motives towards him?  <snip>

Switching gears, I never said that was a bad action on Hannah's part. I think it was a part of the game and I would characterize that action as "neutral" since everyone present had signed up to play this game and they all are aware the motto is "Outwit, Outlast, Outplay".  <snip>

I think Hannah has definitely engaged in other morally bad actions. Bad actions that were truly nasty and performed with evil intent towards others. Specifically, badgering Zeke and Adam <snip>

I imagine Hannah started out just talking to Bret (remember, she's from Boston too), but the cop vibes didn't mesh with her idea of funeral director, so she started asking questions. Why? You probably want to know if someone is lying to you. It's good info to have. And if it makes someone else a bigger target than you or you can use that information, you do.

I don't think it was benevolent, but it wasn't really malicious either. Strategic, sure, but not really mean-spirited, IMO. As AliShibaz stated, a neutral action in the game of Survivor.

I will have to respectfully disagree with Ali (Hope I can call you that!) that Hannah's badgering of Zeke and Adam was morally bad and performed with evil intent toward them. It was stupid. It was socially and emotionally oblivious. It was an epic clash of different communication styles and emotional needs. But I do honestly think that Hannah, at that point, was very upset at the vote and felt she needed to explain and she needed reassurance. Zeke felt he needed to go off and process. Adam appeared to be almost trying to translate Zeke for Hannah ("He isn't saying he'll never talk to you. He just can't right now. He wants to be left alone."), and IMO he had the right idea but was stuck with two people who handle emotions very differently pretty much right after something went down.

There are interesting theories and research about gender, communication, and values. While I highly dislike saying "This is how men communicate..." (or women) because there are so many exceptions, I find trends and theories helpful in analyzing interactions. You can look at Hannah's conversation with Zeke/Adam as Zeke and Adam having just lost status within the tribe, and they did not want to talk about it with someone responsible right then. Hannah, though, just had to choose between two sets of relationships and is trying to communicate for emotional reasons. It is very upsetting for her to potentially lose two friends, so she can't walk away without trying to fix it even though she's making it worse. They're all focused on their own needs.

[green]

5 hours ago, AliShibaz said:

I've recently discovered the Eastern concepts of kharma and dogma. Kharma seems to mean that every living person receuves consequences for every action they perform - both good and bad consequences for both good and bad actions. Seems to me that describes the world as a very fair place. But, this world sure doesn't seem like a very fair place to me. Of course, that may just be due to my self-centered nature.

OT but lots of posts here seem to be, heh, and I sure don't mind them so hope no one minds this one since threads at this web site aren't running into the hundreds.  Technically dogma is actually a western term.  Maybe you were going for Dharma (universal law) instead? 

And there are three types of karma.  Only one focuses on current new actions that will in the future come back to haunt us.  The other two take into consideration past lives setting up a current destiny line this life and a storehouse overflowing with past karmas that will take lots of rebirths to work out. 

As a result eastern philosophy thus combines the philosophies of free will and pre-destination into a holistic view of both.  Like you are dealt a hand of cards from your deck of stored karmas -- pre-destination based on past actions that were at one time free will actions in the past -- and you play them using your free will which will in turn, by those free actions, then bind you to other actions (karmas) in the future where some extend into new lives where they basically turn into destiny karma.

So eastern philosophy says there is fairness in the end but not centered on just a one lifetime pov thus the world seen from the prospective of just one birth will never look or, indeed, be just.  It will take a number of births to square up accounts.  But by then you have created more fresh new karmas from those births so it goes on and on. 

Thus the point of all yoga systems other than hatha (which is in the main the physical postures for good health one) is to find a path to moksha or liberation from this cycle and breaking free of karmas thus rebirths.

Again sorry for the OT but I always see people posting kind of the western, truncated thus making no sense version of what karma is here in Survivor.  Not saying that about the original poster.  They are, as they state, just learning about same.  Hope this helps them to keep exploring said ideas.

[MissEwa]

2 hours ago, simplyme said:

I will have to respectfully disagree with Ali (Hope I can call you that!) that Hannah's badgering of Zeke and Adam was morally bad and performed with evil intent toward them. It was stupid. It was socially and emotionally oblivious. It was an epic clash of different communication styles and emotional needs. But I do honestly think that Hannah, at that point, was very upset at the vote and felt she needed to explain and she needed reassurance. Zeke felt he needed to go off and process. Adam appeared to be almost trying to translate Zeke for Hannah ("He isn't saying he'll never talk to you. He just can't right now. He wants to be left alone."), and IMO he had the right idea but was stuck with two people who handle emotions very differently pretty much right after something went down.

 

This. I've got problems with Hannah but I honestly don't see how her annoying Adam and Zeke was intentionally nasty and not just oblivious. Sure, it's pointless and unhelpful and annoying, but it's not morally bad or - really?!? - evil. YMMV, but I guess I come from the position of having a similar fill-the-silence arguing style - I find it necessary to get things off my chest and if people are mad at me I find it difficult to step away and let them calm down without trying (and trying and trying) to explain myself. If she's anything like me - and she does seem to be, in some ways - there was probably a very loud voice in her head telling her to be quiet and walk away and give them time but then her mouth just. kept. going. 

I guess if it was intentional, I don't see why she'd be doing it. It didn't put her in a good position, game(or anything)-wise. Ditto the panic attack. Why would you deliberately want to put a target on yourself like that? 

[AliShibaz]

5 hours ago, simplyme said:

I imagine Hannah started out just talking to Bret (remember, she's from Boston too), but the cop vibes didn't mesh with her idea of funeral director, so she started asking questions. Why? You probably want to know if someone is lying to you. It's good info to have. And if it makes someone else a bigger target than you or you can use that information, you do.

I don't think it was benevolent, but it wasn't really malicious either. Strategic, sure, but not really mean-spirited, IMO. As AliShibaz stated, a neutral action in the game of Survivor.

I will have to respectfully disagree with Ali (Hope I can call you that!) that Hannah's badgering of Zeke and Adam was morally bad and performed with evil intent toward them. It was stupid. It was socially and emotionally oblivious. It was an epic clash of different communication styles and emotional needs. But I do honestly think that Hannah, at that point, was very upset at the vote and felt she needed to explain and she needed reassurance. Zeke felt he needed to go off and process. Adam appeared to be almost trying to translate Zeke for Hannah ("He isn't saying he'll never talk to you. He just can't right now. He wants to be left alone."), and IMO he had the right idea but was stuck with two people who handle emotions very differently pretty much right after something went down.

There are interesting theories and research about gender, communication, and values. While I highly dislike saying "This is how men communicate..." (or women) because there are so many exceptions, I find trends and theories helpful in analyzing interactions. You can look at Hannah's conversation with Zeke/Adam as Zeke and Adam having just lost status within the tribe, and they did not want to talk about it with someone responsible right then. Hannah, though, just had to choose between two sets of relationships and is trying to communicate for emotional reasons. It is very upsetting for her to potentially lose two friends, so she can't walk away without trying to fix it even though she's making it worse. They're all focused on their own needs.

After reading your post, I've decided that you are correct and I was wrong to judge Hannah to be acting with evil intentions when she badgered Zeke. I'm perfectly willing to accept that she was being stupid more so than evil.

You made a good persuasive post.

Also, thanks to Green and MissEwa.

Edited November 7, 2016 by AliShibaz

[AliShibaz]

7 hours ago, green said:

OT but lots of posts here seem to be, heh, and I sure don't mind them so hope no one minds this one since threads at this web site aren't running into the hundreds.  Technically dogma is actually a western term.  Maybe you were going for Dharma (universal law) instead? 

<snip>

Actually, I was going to make a joke about how someone's kharma ran over someone else's dogma.

But I figured someone would complain that was just too OT.

I enjoyed your post. It wasn't too OT for me. After all, I'm the one who started down that road.

[sassykattt]

Hannah may have no physical game or social game, but she sure sussed out the cop, so she's got something going on

[SVNBob]

On a totally different topic;

Taylor saying the title quote; anyone else having a hard time believing it?  Him: "I will destroy you."  Me: "Dude, you couldn't destroy an ant.  About the only thing you look like could "destroy" is a large pizza and a 12-pack...and that's after some "medicinal assistance"."

[KimberStormer]

If I didn't know the title quotes never really mean anything I might see it as foreshadowing in one of two ways: either Taylor completely fails to destroy Adam (it's ironic!), and the audience cheers because everyone hates Taylor (although of course now it's "well, he's not that bad!" because Figgy is gone, the real target of the Survivor Fan 2-Minute Hate, despite the fact that we now know for a fact that he's an incredible asshole, and Figgy never did a damn thing to anyone); or he does destroy Adam, and we enjoy the age-old tale of implacable revenge.  But I feel like the title quotes never do mean anything, so who knows.

[green]

8 hours ago, SVNBob said:

On a totally different topic;

Taylor saying the title quote; anyone else having a hard time believing it?  Him: "I will destroy you."  Me: "Dude, you couldn't destroy an ant.  About the only thing you look like could "destroy" is a large pizza and a 12-pack...and that's after some "medicinal assistance"."

Well Taylor was laughing when he said it and was pretty obvious he was saying it as a joke.  Sure he wants revenge some but he knew it would sound so over the top he embraced it and did it laughingly in some B Reel 1950's invasion of the whatevers type of voice which was about the only time this whole season I actually found myself liking him some.

 And I swear I heard someone laughing in the background when he said it too.  Like either the production assistant or the cameraman filming the confessional or both couldn't stop themselves from laughing out loud as well.

[ghoulina]

I thought Taylor looked kind of maniacal when he said it. He gets crazy eyes from time to time. 

[303420]

On 11/2/2016 at 7:14 PM, LadyChatts said:

I don't think Jay should get so confident, so fast.  And trust me, I'm all about people making moves.  I just don't know if this was the right time for this move.  Unless there was a lot of behind the scenes we didn't see, like Michaela saying she was ditching him first thing she could.  There's still a long way to go.  Whose left in his alliance?  Will and Taylor?  I think Michelle will ditch that sinking ship.  I don't believe Bret will stick with him.  Hannah and Sunday will probably go wherever the numbers are.  So he's got an idol.  I don't know if this is going to wind up being a good move for him or not.  I agree Michaela was a threat, but I think he could have easily taken her out at the merge (unless she immediately flipped-which I don't think she would have done-or went on a huge IIC streak).

I think it's a perfectly fine time, not least because Michaela totally could have gone on an IIC streak. The week she loses there might've been bigger fish to fry, or a "stick with the plan" style TC blunder, or any other number of things that could leave a challenge monster and FTC threat in longer than you want them. Furthermore, as @Alapaki noted earlier, if you have to cut her, better to do it before the jury. Also, the idol knowledge didn't help.

I hope one day for a "Survivor Amazing" with the likes of Joe, Michaela, Kim Spradlin, Malcolm, Ozzy, Tom Westman, maybe Ken.

On 11/2/2016 at 10:21 PM, AliShibaz said:

If I didn't know better, I would never guess that Jessica is a District Attorney (or is it "Assistant" District Attorney?). I get a very strong impression that her mind lacks the necessary "sharpness" that enables D.A.'s to cut through any and all of the crap that comes out of peoples' mouths and enables them to cut straight to the truth.

That's what a TV ADA does, not a real-world one. Jessica ain't Jack McCoy. 

On 11/3/2016 at 9:33 AM, peachmangosteen said:

I am very excited to see how the post-merge game plays out. There are so many different factions and I have no idea who will ultimately work with who.

Yes! Exactly! It's that whole pods and temporary alliances thing in action! What really happened here is that the duo of Jay and Will teamed up (maybe temporarily) with the duo of Bret and Sunday to bounce a threat within their own larger alliance at what I think is an appropriate time, but I see how it's also risky. 

I totally think it's keeping the season exciting, though.

[green]

13 hours ago, 303420 said:

I think it's a perfectly fine time, not least because Michaela totally could have gone on an IIC streak. The week she loses there might've been bigger fish to fry, or a "stick with the plan" style TC blunder, or any other number of things that could leave a challenge monster and FTC threat in longer than you want them. Furthermore, as @Alapaki noted earlier, if you have to cut her, better to do it before the jury. Also, the idol knowledge didn't help.

This is exactly WHY you want to keep Michaela for your alliance.  She becomes the number one target for your alliance and you hide behind her.

And no way would she have really gone in an immunity challenge run of epic proportions given Chris is a former college football player and Ken and even Jay seem good at the exact same things she is good at.  She might have won her share but she would never have run the board.

Now the apparent reason Jay wanted her out that we did not see on our screens but was posted here by others from what they saw or read in either hidden scenes or post-boot interviews was that Michaela wanted Michelle out next and Jay was in thick with Michelle being part of his inner core alliance within an alliance.  That reason I could buy.  But not some IC run.

[Superpole2000]

That was the best vote reveal I've seen on this show. Thanks Jay...and a big thank you to Jeff! That must have been one of the very few times Jeff has willfully interrupted revealing the votes so that someone could speak. He may have messed up his underwear reacting to the moment, but Probst did a great job of letting the moment breathe a little. Some hosts would have stomped all over it. Probst was a pro.

[TV Anonymous]

On 11/3/2016 at 3:46 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

Yes, thanks.  Did you miss the three posts from 3 hours ago that covered that?  

You are welcome. Yes I did.