general thoughts about season 41

[Questor]

As noted elsewhere, Jeff has been breaking the fourth wall quite a bit in this
season. But after 41 seasons, do we need the game of Survivor explained to us?
And often the asides serve no purpose. For example, in the lastest episode he
excitedly tells us there's a big twist in the upcoming immunity challenge. But
the viewers don't learn about it until the footage of him telling the players
about it, which is when we usually would find out. So why the breathless bit
beforehand? It adds nothing.

Challenges. Ah, season 41. Touted as a "new era" of Survivor. So why all the
old challenges? Has that department given up all creativity? I haven't kept
track, but it certainly seems that the majority of challenges are repeats. And
we saw one of the results of that when Evie immediately solved the pyramid
dissection puzzle. As for this viewer, seeing the old challenges again makes
the show less interesting.

Fiji. Yes, Fiji is beautiful. And undoubtedly the show is less expensive to
produce by staying there. The wheels are greased -- locations already
arranged, suppliers lined up, etc. But part of the excitement of Survivor was
the new locations each season. Remaining in Fiji contributes to the staleness
of the show.

Twists. Posters here in the past have complained about the number of twists.
This season I wholeheartedly agree with them. Seeing the players confronted
with the prisoner's dilemma was interesting, although in the classic conundrum
the prisoners do not colaborate. The odds for Shot in the Dark are simply
awful. The triple idol activation scheme was dumb and silly. And now we have
the possibility of a player eliminated just through random chance with the Do or
Die twist? Why bother having a vote at all? Just have the players draw rocks
every episode. It seems that this is where all the creative energy has gone
this season, but sadly the producers are failing in the efforts to make the game
more interesting.

So, same old locations, same old challenges, and weak attempts to create new
wrinkles in the game. It's not the worst season ever, but it's far from the
best. Thus far the "new era" of Survivor isn't shaping up to be very new or
very exciting. Is Survivor running out of steam?

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 20:57:10 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

>
>As noted elsewhere, Jeff has been breaking the fourth wall quite a bit in this
>season. But after 41 seasons, do we need the game of Survivor explained to us?
>And often the asides serve no purpose. For example, in the lastest episode he
>excitedly tells us there's a big twist in the upcoming immunity challenge. But
>the viewers don't learn about it until the footage of him telling the players
>about it, which is when we usually would find out. So why the breathless bit
>beforehand? It adds nothing.

Actually I don't mind most of the asides - when they did the last
tribal council all the tricks I think DID need explanation. For
instance that the odds were only 1/3 not 1/2. On the other hand the
way Jeff aped the "big deal of the day" from Monty Hall's "Lets Make a
Deal" (including eliminating one of the three then giving him the
chance to switch) was familiar enough not to need explanation. (At
least to anybody old enough to have seen LMAD)

>Challenges. Ah, season 41. Touted as a "new era" of Survivor. So why all the
>old challenges? Has that department given up all creativity? I haven't kept
>track, but it certainly seems that the majority of challenges are repeats. And
>we saw one of the results of that when Evie immediately solved the pyramid
>dissection puzzle. As for this viewer, seeing the old challenges again makes
>the show less interesting.

I rather enjoyed the way she polished her image as a "super-fan".
Obviously it didn't help her moving ahead (if anything it hurt her as
it told the others she was playing harder than they were) but it was a
reasonable strategy in terms of getting her time on camera.

>Fiji. Yes, Fiji is beautiful. And undoubtedly the show is less expensive to
>produce by staying there. The wheels are greased -- locations already
>arranged, suppliers lined up, etc. But part of the excitement of Survivor was
>the new locations each season. Remaining in Fiji contributes to the staleness
>of the show.

Quite apart from anything else they can leave their gear in a
warehouse between seasons.

As for your other point one of the things I most enjoyed about
Survivor UK 1 (or was it Aussie Survivor 1?) was that it was played on
Palau Tiga which was the "original island" which really was an island
though the players were only given 1/2 of it with the rest left for
crew. There were some VERY familiar locations from the US show shown
on the UK show but there were other familiar locations that were used
VERY differently. Perhaps it's 20 years of memory but the Fijian sets
seem a lot more generic or perhaps it's that the Survivor carpentry
staff are more experienced.

As it is the Fijian government is said to be quite happy with Burnett
& company so they seem to be working well together.

>Twists. Posters here in the past have complained about the number of twists.
>This season I wholeheartedly agree with them. Seeing the players confronted
>with the prisoner's dilemma was interesting, although in the classic conundrum
>the prisoners do not colaborate. The odds for Shot in the Dark are simply
>awful. The triple idol activation scheme was dumb and silly. And now we have
>the possibility of a player eliminated just through random chance with the Do or
>Die twist? Why bother having a vote at all? Just have the players draw rocks
>every episode. It seems that this is where all the creative energy has gone
>this season, but sadly the producers are failing in the efforts to make the game
>more interesting.

I agree with most of what you said especially the Triple idol
activation thing. It certainly wouldn't work at the merge or later.

No - most of the producers effort THIS season has been sufficiently
woke enough to keep their "progressive" critics at bay. Which I think
is to the detriment of the show. I'm getting damned tired of all this
racial identity chatter EVERY SINGLE EPISODE and I'm sure we'll hear a
lot more of it on finale night.

If I'm right on this this could be my last Survivor as it's really
getting tiresome.

[Brian Smith]

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-7, Questor wrote:
> As noted elsewhere, Jeff has been breaking the fourth wall quite a bit in this
> season. But after 41 seasons, do we need the game of Survivor explained to us?
> And often the asides serve no purpose. For example, in the lastest episode he
> excitedly tells us there's a big twist in the upcoming immunity challenge. But
> the viewers don't learn about it until the footage of him telling the players
> about it, which is when we usually would find out. So why the breathless bit
> beforehand? It adds nothing.

I agree. Jeff's acting as if the majority of viewers have never seen the show before and/or developed amnesia during the pandemic and have forgotten what the show is about.

> Challenges. Ah, season 41. Touted as a "new era" of Survivor. So why all the
> old challenges? Has that department given up all creativity? I haven't kept
> track, but it certainly seems that the majority of challenges are repeats. And
> we saw one of the results of that when Evie immediately solved the pyramid
> dissection puzzle. As for this viewer, seeing the old challenges again makes
> the show less interesting.

Blame network execs for the lack of variety in challenges. The comp producer for BB has said that the network wants to see the same "classic" comps every season. I'm sure it's no different with Survivor. Heath has also said we'll never see certain comps again because they last too long. It's been ages since we've seen a comp/challenge on these shows last eight hours or longer. Heath said the network doesn't want to pay a bunch of money to have crew stand around for hours. Repeating comps also saves money in other ways. I'm pretty sure lack of creativity isn't an issue either. Heath mentions ideas to us all of the time of things he'd like to do but can't because he's not the one calling the shots. Kirhoffer is probably in the same boat.

> Fiji. Yes, Fiji is beautiful. And undoubtedly the show is less expensive to
> produce by staying there. The wheels are greased -- locations already
> arranged, suppliers lined up, etc. But part of the excitement of Survivor was
> the new locations each season. Remaining in Fiji contributes to the staleness
> of the show.

I disagree. New location is good for initial hype but never seems to matter after that with the odd exception. Cambodia, for example, was way too hot and nearly killed a few players. I don't think too many viewers want to see the players suffer like that.

> Twists. Posters here in the past have complained about the number of twists.
> This season I wholeheartedly agree with them. Seeing the players confronted
> with the prisoner's dilemma was interesting, although in the classic conundrum
> the prisoners do not colaborate. The odds for Shot in the Dark are simply
> awful. The triple idol activation scheme was dumb and silly. And now we have
> the possibility of a player eliminated just through random chance with the Do or
> Die twist? Why bother having a vote at all? Just have the players draw rocks
> every episode. It seems that this is where all the creative energy has gone
> this season, but sadly the producers are failing in the efforts to make the game
> more interesting.

I firmly believe that Jeff is trying to re-create the TC from S34 (Game Changers) that sent Cirie home with no votes. He's trying to manufacture as many blindsides and WTF moments as he can. If they did the Do or Die twist again in S42 we're going to see new players going forward studying game theory to prepare for such twists. Before you know it the social aspect of the game will become a lot less important.

> So, same old locations, same old challenges, and weak attempts to create new
> wrinkles in the game. It's not the worst season ever, but it's far from the
> best. Thus far the "new era" of Survivor isn't shaping up to be very new or
> very exciting. Is Survivor running out of steam?

It's the new wrinkles and woke moments that are ruining the show. Survivor shouldn't be a platform for social issues. If players want to use their "fame" after the show to advocate for certain issues that's fine. Jeff shouldn't be focusing on it during the game.

--
Brian

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

On 2021-12-05 20:57:10 +0000, Questor said:

> But after 41 seasons, do we need the game of Survivor explained to us?

They're not aiming the show at you and the people here anymore.
They're desperately trying anything and everything to grab on to new
viewers--the majority of whom, they believe, are part of the woke crowd.

> Challenges. Ah, season 41. Touted as a "new era" of Survivor. So why all the
> old challenges? Has that department given up all creativity? I haven't kept
> track, but it certainly seems that the majority of challenges are repeats.

Cost. No need to pay people to come up with new challenges. Also, see
above--CBS truly thinks they're showing this show to people who have
never seen it before.

> And
> we saw one of the results of that when Evie immediately solved the pyramid
> dissection puzzle.

We also saw the "stand on your toes and keep the block wedged between
your head and the frame" challenge. REAL survivors lasted 1 hour, 22
minutes. But now? In mere seconds, a bunch of people dropped out--and
the entire thing lasted only "barely 4 minutes", "the shortest this
challenge has ever gone". Snowflakes.

> As for this viewer, seeing the old challenges again makes
> the show less interesting.

Agreed, because either way they're blowing through these things in a
few minutes.

> Fiji. Yes, Fiji is beautiful. And undoubtedly the show is less expensive to
> produce by staying there. The wheels are greased -- locations already
> arranged, suppliers lined up, etc. But part of the excitement of Survivor was
> the new locations each season. Remaining in Fiji contributes to the staleness
> of the show.

In other words, CBS is phoning it in and is picking up whatever stray
crumbs of viewers that bother to tune in. As long as it pays the bills.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

On 2021-12-05 22:59:37 +0000, Brian Smith said:

> I agree. Jeff's acting as if the majority of viewers have never seen
> the show before and/or developed amnesia during the pandemic and have
> forgotten what the show is about.

no. They're acting as if previous viewers are gone, and that most if
not all are new viewers who have no idea about anything in the past.

They might be right.

> It's the new wrinkles and woke moments that are ruining the show.
> Survivor shouldn't be a platform for social issues. If players want to
> use their "fame" after the show to advocate for certain issues that's
> fine. Jeff shouldn't be focusing on it during the game.

This is way beyond Jeff. He's taking his marching orders from CBS
execs, who think this is the way to profits--because all they know is
the screaming Twitbook crowds.

[Questor]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 14:49:54 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>No - most of the producers effort THIS season has been sufficiently
>woke enough to keep their "progressive" critics at bay. Which I think
>is to the detriment of the show. I'm getting damned tired of all this
>racial identity chatter EVERY SINGLE EPISODE and I'm sure we'll hear a
>lot more of it on finale night.
>
>If I'm right on this this could be my last Survivor as it's really
>getting tiresome.

"There are too many Black people on my television! OMG!"

LOL

The pendulum swings the other way and white boys have their knickers in a twist.

[The Horny Goat]

I have no problem with lots of black contestants - I have a problem
with them talking about 'blackness' and how important it is that one
of them win as though no "person of color" had ever won Survivor
before (3 black, 1 Asian, 1 Hispanic - twice - if memory serves)

Bottom line is that it's racist to determine members of an alliance by
race. And it's just as bad when blacks exclude everybody else as when
whites exclude everybody else. And to talk about it constantly is pure
bovine kaka.

Again - if black folks have any legitimate gripe about Survivor it's
not in the casting department but in the film editting. Though I would
be interested in their views on which past contestant got a horrible
edit.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

On 2021-12-06 12:50:45 +0000, Elmo P. Shagnasty said:

>> And
>> we saw one of the results of that when Evie immediately solved the pyramid
>> dissection puzzle.
>
> We also saw the "stand on your toes and keep the block wedged between
> your head and the frame" challenge. REAL survivors lasted 1 hour, 22
> minutes. But now? In mere seconds, a bunch of people dropped out--and
> the entire thing lasted only "barely 4 minutes", "the shortest this
> challenge has ever gone". Snowflakes.

I just re-watched Tom and Ian as they squatted on those floats, edges
of their feet barely hanging on, for ELEVEN HOURS AND 55 MINUTES.
Sure, Probst and the film crew probaby weren't happy about it--but
welcome to Survivor. Never give up. But, it looks like giving up is
the mantra of the current generation.

I wonder if situations like that have nudged Probst and Survivor LLC to
do things to prevent situations like that--up to and including,
perhaps, secret deals/bonuses. We'll never know, because contracts,
but still.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

As long as it's the APPROVED racism, right?

Go on, go right to the end and call them "wypipo".

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Oh, I'm sure Earl is an Uncle Tom. After all, he went along with
things. (Hint: that's why he won.)

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 22:14:20 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>> The pendulum swings the other way and white boys have their knickers in
>> a twist.
>
>As long as it's the APPROVED racism, right?
>
>Go on, go right to the end and call them "wypipo".

The annoying thing for me this season is that several of them hope to
be the first black Survivor winner.

Which tells me they don't know the game because at best one of them
with be the FOURTH black winner.

Maybe I'm wrong but several of them regularly speak as if no person of
color has EVER won the game. And that plain + simply is untrue.

I'd love to see Vecepia Towery at finale night but I guarantee that
won't happen either! (Anybody reading this who doesn't know who she is
needs to look her up on Google)

(One thing I'd love to know but guarantee CBS will never tell us is
what %age of the Survivor applicant pool is "of color". I say again
blacks MAY have a case based on how certain contestants have been
editted but I do not think they have a legitimate beef on the casting
side!)

If there's any group that's been under-represented in Survivor casting
it's Indians - either Amerindians or people whose forebears were in
India (or Pakistan or Sri Lanka). Before this season have there been
ANY? (and one could ask the same question about BB which is also a CBS
show!) BB once had an ultra-orthodox Jew but he was 2nd boot so nobody
remembers him.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 22:16:09 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Oh, I'm sure Earl is an Uncle Tom. After all, he went along with
>things. (Hint: that's why he won.)

I don't think that's fair comment but if he was the super fan he was
portrayed as he knew what he had to do to win.

And people will do the darnedst things for $1,000,000!

[Brian Smith]

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:45:03 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 22:14:20 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty
> <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> >> The pendulum swings the other way and white boys have their knickers in
> >> a twist.
> >
> >As long as it's the APPROVED racism, right?
> >
> >Go on, go right to the end and call them "wypipo".
> The annoying thing for me this season is that several of them hope to
> be the first black Survivor winner.
>
> Which tells me they don't know the game because at best one of them
> with be the FOURTH black winner.

There's already been four black winners: Vescepia, Earl, Jeremy, and Wendell.

> Maybe I'm wrong but several of them regularly speak as if no person of
> color has EVER won the game. And that plain + simply is untrue.
>
> I'd love to see Vecepia Towery at finale night but I guarantee that
> won't happen either! (Anybody reading this who doesn't know who she is
> needs to look her up on Google)
>
> (One thing I'd love to know but guarantee CBS will never tell us is
> what %age of the Survivor applicant pool is "of color". I say again
> blacks MAY have a case based on how certain contestants have been
> editted but I do not think they have a legitimate beef on the casting
> side!)
>
> If there's any group that's been under-represented in Survivor casting
> it's Indians - either Amerindians or people whose forebears were in
> India (or Pakistan or Sri Lanka). Before this season have there been
> ANY? (and one could ask the same question about BB which is also a CBS
> show!) BB once had an ultra-orthodox Jew but he was 2nd boot so nobody
> remembers him.

Nadiya and Natalie's parents are fro Sri Lanka. Karishma Patel's family is from India. She was on S39 and made it pretty far into the game.

Ovi's (BB21) family is from Bangladesh. Hannah's (BB23) dad is from India and her mom from South Africa. Until very recently, Asians of any type have been rare on BB. That mostly has to do with their cultures. We'll probably see more Asians apply next season given how popular DX is and the fact that he didn't embarrass himself or his family. Ending up with Claire won't hurt either!

--
Brian

[Brian Smith]

From what I remember of that season, Earl was a smart player. He didn't win because someone else lost if you know what I mean. It's too bad we didn't get to see him play in Winners at War. Would have been interesting to see who he would have aligned with.

--
Brian

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

On 2021-12-14 06:44:58 +0000, The Horny Goat said:

> The annoying thing for me this season is that several of them hope to
> be the first black Survivor winner.
>
> Which tells me they don't know the game because at best one of them
> with be the FOURTH black winner.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong but several of them regularly speak as if no person of
> color has EVER won the game. And that plain + simply is untrue.

Just turn on cable TV randomly, and see all the untrue things that are
being shamelessly spewed by professionals--under the assumption that
everyone is ignorant.

Did you know Kyle Rittenhouse traveled across state lines carrying an
AK-47 and killed three black people? Just ask the talking
heads--they'll tell you (while shielding scum of the earth types like
Chris Cuomo and his pedophile producer).

Is it possible these Survivor contestants are that ignorant and are
caught up in this? Or are they being, shall we say, "encouraged" to go
along with a narrative that CBS is hell-bent on promoting?

[The Horny Goat]

I would also welcome him back - though one thing Jeff NEVER talks
about except in the context of a couple of people (Brian Heiduk for
one) who will NEVER be invited back. It's quite possible Earl HAS been
invited back and declined.

Elisabeth Filarski-Haesselback has confirmed she was invited back but
declined apparently on the advice of her doctor who had examined her
both before and after season 2 and told her if she wanted children
doing a second Survivor was a bad idea.

(Any longtime participant in this group knows she's near top of my
personal list on those I'd like to see again on the show)

[The Horny Goat]

You may well be right which is why I'd LOVE to see Vecepia Towery (for
the newbies: "first POC/black to win Survivor all the way back in
season 4") at the finale though I know it would never happen as it
wouldn't fit with this season's narrative.

[zeppo]

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 12:36:21 PM UTC-8, The Horny Goat wrote:

> I would also welcome him back - though one thing Jeff NEVER talks
> about except in the context of a couple of people (Brian Heiduk for
> one) who will NEVER be invited back. It's quite possible Earl HAS been
> invited back and declined.
>

Earl was approached by Survivor and asked about his interest in participating in S40, but he declined due to having
a new baby at home.

[Questor]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 18:39:36 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 19:25:15 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 14:49:54 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>No - most of the producers effort THIS season has been sufficiently
>>>woke enough to keep their "progressive" critics at bay. Which I think
>>>is to the detriment of the show. I'm getting damned tired of all this
>>>racial identity chatter EVERY SINGLE EPISODE and I'm sure we'll hear a
>>>lot more of it on finale night.
>>>
>>>If I'm right on this this could be my last Survivor as it's really
>>>getting tiresome.
>>
>>"There are too many Black people on my television! OMG!"
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>The pendulum swings the other way and white boys have their knickers in a twist.
>
>I have no problem with lots of black contestants - I have a problem
>with them talking about 'blackness' and how important it is that one
>of them win as though no "person of color" had ever won Survivor

"There are too many Black people on my television talking about being Black!"

You still don't get it.

Do you talk about "white culture?" Of course not -- you don't have to. You are
like a fish in water -- embedded in it, it surrounds you completely. It is the
predominant perspective: white, mostly male, largely Christian. Nearly
everywhere you look -- on television, in newspapers and magazines, in movies --
you see people like yourself reflected back at you. So much so, that when
there's a change -- like in this season's Survivor -- you view it as an
aberration, something that's wrong. You can't identify with it.

Try to imagine that if nearly everywhere you looked, you saw people who were not
like you. People whose experience in our society was markedly different from
your own. One obvious response to that would be to bond more closely with
people who did share your experience in order to reinforce your own identity in
the face of an overwhelming cultural tide to the contrary. The alternative
would be to lose your sense of self, feeling that you were neither one or the
other. (The movie "Green Book" has a great scene that underscores this, where
the piano virtuoso points out that he is not completely accepted by whites,
while being rejected for not being "black enough.")

As I've said, when the Black players on Survivor form an alliance and discuss
their identities as Blacks, it seems to me to be a perfectly natural occurence.
(And note how long that alliance lasted under the pressures that the game of
Survivor exerted on it!) As I said to Brian, instead of rejecting those
segments out of hand, try putting yourself in their shoes. You might learn
something.

As for not acknowledging the other Black winners, maybe they have and we're just
not being shown that footage. Or maybe they *are* ignorant of Survivor history.
We've certainly seen plenty of ignorance on the part of other players over the
years, primarily in regards to good and bad game play.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:19:07 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

>"There are too many Black people on my television talking about being Black!"
>
>You still don't get it.
>
>Do you talk about "white culture?" Of course not -- you don't have to. You are
>like a fish in water -- embedded in it, it surrounds you completely. It is the
>predominant perspective: white, mostly male, largely Christian. Nearly
>everywhere you look -- on television, in newspapers and magazines, in movies --
>you see people like yourself reflected back at you. So much so, that when
>there's a change -- like in this season's Survivor -- you view it as an
>aberration, something that's wrong. You can't identify with it.
>

Well first, I didn't say that. You're distorting it. What I said was
including or not including people in alliances on the basis of race
was racist whether you're white black red yellow or purple.

And that making decisions on who to boot and not to boot was also
racist. Now I >DO< remember players like Clay (S5) who was straight
out of the 1850 Deep South but those are rare and are almost never
cast. He found Ghandia thoroughly obnoxious (as did a lot of fans
including me - though no question she'd have thrived on S41) and was
clearly happy to see her go.

But while I won't go through 40 seasons of winning alliances most of
them were pretty diverse. I've mentioned the BBCan final 3 where the
eventual winner had to decide who to take to final 2 - and he
deliberately painted his decision on race rather than the obvious
likelihood that the woman he sent home was likely to beat him at final
2 based on play. In short he racialized a decision completely
unnecessarily.

Way back in season 1 Mark Burnett and Jeff Probst kept the mythos "16
survivors stranded on an island making a new society" and in the early
days they largely kept that. Race simply wasn't a factor in the early
seasons. There were times it creeped in (Sandra talked about 'winning
for Hispanics' a couple of times but it wasn't her main thrust) but in
the early days it wasn't a big theme Clay vs. Ghandia not
withstanding. Both of them were nasty stereotypes and it was ironic
they were cast in the season immediately after Vecepia Towery's win
(who I thought was more than full value for her win)

Not to pick on southern whites per se - S2 Paschal English in my
opinion is worth 20 Clay Jordans and Russell Hantzs (who in my opinion
wasn't especially racist - he was a dick to everybody though he
embraced the 'good ol' boy' image) and there have been numerous since.

Anyhow that's enough of a historical rant. I do think that Survivor
doesn't especially have a problem with casting but may well with
editting.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

On 2021-12-15 03:19:07 +0000, Questor said:

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 18:39:36 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 19:25:15 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 14:49:54 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> No - most of the producers effort THIS season has been sufficiently
>>>> woke enough to keep their "progressive" critics at bay. Which I think
>>>> is to the detriment of the show. I'm getting damned tired of all this
>>>> racial identity chatter EVERY SINGLE EPISODE and I'm sure we'll hear a
>>>> lot more of it on finale night.
>>>>
>>>> If I'm right on this this could be my last Survivor as it's really
>>>> getting tiresome.
>>>
>>> "There are too many Black people on my television! OMG!"
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> The pendulum swings the other way and white boys have their knickers in
>>> a twist.
>>
>> I have no problem with lots of black contestants - I have a problem
>> with them talking about 'blackness' and how important it is that one
>> of them win as though no "person of color" had ever won Survivor
>
> "There are too many Black people on my television talking about being Black!"
>
> You still don't get it.

Yeah, he gets it. You're too stuck in your world to get it.

You think you have to idenitfy specifically as something in order to
belong--and you've unwisely chosen skin color.

Enjoy your little bubble of an echo chamber.

>
> Try to imagine that if nearly everywhere you looked, you saw people who
> were not
> like you.

"not like you"??? So you think black people are "not like" other people???????

> People whose experience in our society was markedly different from
> your own. One obvious response to that would be to bond more closely with
> people who did share your experience in order to reinforce your own identity in
> the face of an overwhelming cultural tide to the contrary.

there we go, with identity politics.

I'm astounded that millions of people every year will do
anything--legal or otherwise--to come into our country which, if they
listened to you, is such a horrible place to live and in which they can
never succeed.