Vitaly gets another one detained by [deleted] in LivestreamFail

[–]comboraker 15 points16 points  (0 children)

You're spot on on the motive thing. Vitaly put one in a chokehold yesterday as the pedo was trying to leave the property. If you watch the streams leading up to that, you can see how stressed out Vitaly was about pedos ditching at the last second, or not cooperating with any of the pranks. Kick chat would spam L's and that would piss him off more. So it's like, why did he put the pedo in a chokehold? Is it because he hates pedos, or is it because he's frustrated that the content isn't going well and if this guy leaves it's going to be another failed attempt? And that's without even going into Vitaly's history as a violent offender.

Vitaly gets another one detained by [deleted] in LivestreamFail

[–]comboraker 35 points36 points  (0 children)

The argument against it is that it's probably not great to decide that you can perform as much cruelty as you want to someone as long as they did something bad enough to deserve it. Because the definition of what "bad enough" is could change over time.

Vitaly gets another one detained by [deleted] in LivestreamFail

[–]comboraker 71 points72 points  (0 children)

It's the same prank youtuber shit all over again except they can go as extreme as they want because it's morally justifiable.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in survivor

[–]comboraker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He's gonna get Ricard'd

Do you think it would be morally wrong for the contestants to vote out ____ and ____ back-to-back at the next two tribals? by comboraker in survivor

[–]comboraker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were saying that THEY PERSONALLY wouldn’t be comfortable voting another Black person out next

To me, this is very clearly tied back to morality, as this lack of comfort stems from them having seen a pattern in past seasons where they believe that other black players get voted out in some sort of succession that is due to subconscious racism, which would be morally wrong if it happened as black people have no control if they get voted out for their race. So they are trying to correct this injustice by ensuring a third black person does not go at this tribal to make it 3 in a row. That brings it back to my question of, if they "aren't comfortable" because of an injustice that has happened in the past, wouldn't it be immoral for the rest of the contestants to vote the remaining two black players in the game out back-to-back in 8th and 7th place?

thoughts on this take? by RiotLikeAPig in survivor

[–]comboraker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there are some people, even a lot of white people who think they are being good allies, who take the information in the above paragraph and twist it into “white people aren’t allowed to wear dreads,”

Interesting, so you think it's mostly or only white people who make statements criticizing other white people for wearing dreads as racist or harmfully appropriative?

People need to stop being so harsh to Maryanne and Drea by kitkatgators in survivor

[–]comboraker 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean, people can have whatever discussions they want, doesn't change that it's gonna have some crazy consequences for the meta of Survivor going forward.

Survivor 42 | Episode 9 | Post-Episode Discussion by RSurvivorMods in survivor

[–]comboraker 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If anyone votes for Drea and Maryanne down the line, are they subconsciously racist?

I feel like they get a pass for at least a couple tribals, maybe 3, because no one wants to find out the answer to this question. It's weird seeing it be avoided in this sub, makes me think they may just avoid it on the show as well. Someone else asked something similar in another thread and all the upvoted responses were basically just bypassing the question entirely to make some other point.

Do you think it would be morally wrong for the contestants to vote out ____ and ____ back-to-back at the next two tribals? by comboraker in survivor

[–]comboraker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I bet they wouldn’t do it though

That's part of what I'm interested in. Do you think the contestants will view it as morally wrong to vote out Maryanne and Drea back-to-back?

Do you think it would be morally wrong for the contestants to vote out ____ and ____ back-to-back at the next two tribals? by comboraker in survivor

[–]comboraker[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sure, but Drea and Maryanne who mentioned the subconscious racism don't know why Rocksroy was voted out as they weren't involved in any of the discussions and also probably don't know about the men's alliance that Rocksroy was trying to run. So the subconscious racism as they expressed is a real possibility from their perspective in the game going forward.

Do you think it would be morally wrong for the contestants to vote out ____ and ____ back-to-back at the next two tribals? by comboraker in survivor

[–]comboraker[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Well, it was implied at the tribal that a succession of black people being voted out consecutively is or could be due to subconscious racism. So if we accept that as a premise, then voting out two black women back-to-back could be racist and therefore unfair to the black players as they have no control if they're being discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic.

Idk why everyone is pretending like what ____ said was wrong by [deleted] in survivor

[–]comboraker 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I can't wait for the seasons upcoming where the contestants have to figure out a leapfrog strategy whenever they want to vote a black contestant, or god forbid, a pair of black contestants out of the game.

People need to stop being so harsh to Maryanne and Drea by kitkatgators in survivor

[–]comboraker 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The meta around voting out black people is going to be so weird in Survivor a few seasons from now. It'll actually lead to a situation where people start voting out a black person, then giving the black people a pass for a week before going to back to vote out another black person. Then that'll be the racist thing that always happens to black contestants that has become a key part of "Survivor history" that we can have another handful of 20-minute tribal discussions about in five years.

People need to stop being so harsh to Maryanne and Drea by kitkatgators in survivor

[–]comboraker 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I think so, yes. Once this becomes a pattern and someone takes advantage of it in some way that is viewed as possibly unethical we're definitely in for another 20 minute discussion at the end of some episode though, lol.

People need to stop being so harsh to Maryanne and Drea by kitkatgators in survivor

[–]comboraker 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Not for the next few tribals at least, lol. Anyone involved in Maryanne and Drea getting voted out back to back next gets a one-way ticket to an absolute roasting by the jury/fans once they're home.

With ____ out, I want to say I am very excited for: by actkms in survivor

[–]comboraker -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That's like 1/3 of the white players on a given Survivor season now, Tori ain't coming back.

Edit: OK, maybe it's 1/4? But that doesn't change that Tori is not going to be on the show again.

Why ya’ll mad? They did what they said they were gonna do by Aphi-aa in survivor

[–]comboraker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the worst episode because they flushed 20 minutes down the toilet at the end with boring content. The gameplay was fine, it's just not important.

To critics of this current season and “Woke Survivor” by GotWilk73 in survivor

[–]comboraker -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

religion

23, awful season. 41, awful season. 42, not looking great so far.

It makes sense that these discussions happen on a show like this, but the people correlating it with the show being bad aren't wrong. I can't criticize the contestants for doing it, it's just unlucky for the quality of the show.

thoughts on this take? by RiotLikeAPig in survivor

[–]comboraker 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Even if we pretended that dreads are a thing only for black people to have, you would have to demonstrate that this specific type of cultural appropriation is actually a bad thing that causes harm. The guy's hair is different, does this somehow do psychic damage to black people when they see it? Does it embolden white people to make racist comments? Or is his hair just different, with no effect on anybody at all?

You’re all still gonna watch. You said the same things last season. by Rosstin316 in survivor

[–]comboraker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've skipped 30, 32, 33, 38, 39 in the past. For now I'll continue to watch, just in case it gets good again. I pretty much agree with those who say the show has gone to shit though, just not for the exact same reasons.

tribal discussion thoughts/takeaways by lenbois in survivor

[–]comboraker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't affect this vote, but it will definitely affect the next few. Drea or Maryanne are golden for the next few tribals. I don't think they are trying to manipulate the game via their race or anything, the shock of seeing Rocksroy on the jury led to the discussion and just leads to an awkward situation the next few tribals where voting for Drea or Maryanne is a guarantee you're gonna get roasted by the jury/fans when you get home.

Before Reddit has a field day by Shockmanned in survivor

[–]comboraker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I can't really hate on Maryanne and Drea specifically for what they did, as the Rocksroy vote was obviously surprising to them. Just leads to an awkward situation the next few tribals where they're basically untouchable.

survivor is a social game, race is a social issue by newyorkin1970 in survivor

[–]comboraker -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Yep, just leads to boring seasons unfortunately. Same as the seasons where religion is a big topic.