Rizo's half-hearted obligatory hand raise when Jeff asks if anyone is surprised that they're still here lol

#dc comics#batman#dc#bruce wayne#tim drake#dc fanart#batfam#dick grayson#batfamily



seen from Japan
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil

seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Ecuador
seen from Türkiye
seen from Spain
Rizo's half-hearted obligatory hand raise when Jeff asks if anyone is surprised that they're still here lol

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
exr memes (part 1)
📷 @medium-observation
the Les mis us cast is just unbelievable
Nick Rehberger and Jonathan Young aww
the way im so secondhand embarrassed by how hard chrissy and stephenie were sucking jonathan’s dick during FTC, moreso for chrissy than stephenie. like we all knew stephenie was a maga asshole and would obviously do some bullshit like volleying hard for the guy she was voted out protecting even if he didn’t deserve it, but like why was chrissy so up jonathan’s ass too?? i was never one to say chrissy should have won over ben but i’ve always regarded her as a powerful competitor and a strong physical and strategic player, but you wouldn’t know it based on last night with all her drooling and batting her eyes over every word that came out of jonathan’s mouth.
i also think it would have been less icky if they hadn’t both been so vicious towards aubry in their worship of jonathan. a good contrast to me was emily raising the point about every vote needing to go through joe - while she didn’t end up voting for him, she brought one of joe’s virtues to the jury’s attention because she felt like it deserved consideration, and WITHOUT attempting to make the other players look weaker in contrast. stephenie saying “no disrespect” and then immediately telling aubry her game was non-committal and she never took any action was like the ugliest thing i’ve seen at FTC in a long time, and i’m so glad dee called her out for that bullshit right away.
but yeah, just so gross that these two women (but especially chrissy) would put themselves down like that and in the end tarnish the FTC of another amazingly deserved woman winner in aubry bracco

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
So like... the Aubry vs Jonathan conversation I'm seeing across several social media platforms at this point. Let's remove the various social aspects of the situation because yeah, returning player seasons often do lean towards "who has more friends from outside the game that are just gonna vote for you." That's part of the game, and if Jonathan is able to take out Aubry he gets the win (I think).
I've played a few ORGs and have seen juries in the context of no returning players. So my analysis here is kind of based on people playing a game with no actual money attached. But one of these games was played right at the start of the 2020 lockdowns and so for all of us playing was our primary social interaction since we weren't doing a lot else. So we had a similar "socially forced together" feeling for that one like the real show.
Jonathan was making the argument "I was the dominant player who was driving every vote". Aubry was making the argument "I was the underdog that nobody could finish off because I could keep deflecting the vote away from me/separate myself from the other targets".
One of these arguments is just... an easier argument to make. To say that you were the dominant player, you now have to basically argue that you were responsible for literally everything that happened. Any time a jury member or another finalist is able to say "no, that was me", you lose a level of credibility. In the episode we saw this with Joe saying that Aubry was the one that convinced him that going after Ozzy was the right move. Jonathan cannot tell Joe that his feelings are wrong. In the 2020 ORG I saw a dominant player lose because any time any juror could point to one thing she didn't know, everyone was just like "See! You weren't as dominant as you said you were!"
The underdog player... doesn't have that problem. Because their case isn't based on the idea that they knew everything. Their case is based on the idea that they knew how to not be voted out. Which is far easier to prove. They are sitting at the Final Tribal Council. That proves it. In the context of the last episode, Ozzy calls out that Aubry was one of the middle people who apparently were the most dangerous players that needed to be taken out. So... if Jonathan was in total control, why is she there? Aubry's case does not rely on eliminating threats. It relies on surviving. Jonathan's case relies on being in control. So someone being there who he made it clear he did not want to be there just kneecaps his argument before he's said anything.
In another ORG, the winner was a player who got given an idol to play at the merge vote which he needed, then proceeded to be the target the entire last half of the game while constantly being dragged into other people's plans as a number for blindsides. He makes the legitimate argument that he should have been out (since the vast majority of the jury had tried to get him out at LEAST once), and can truthfully say his social game is why we kept coming to him for bigger moves. I can't refute this argument by saying "oh but you didn't know about this secret alliance or advantage" because... the argument isn't that he was dominant. He thought I was going to the finals with him and said that was why he started working with me, so in a "gotcha" moment I told him "If I wasn't blindsided at six I was going to hit you at five, trusting me was a bad call". But... he correctly responded with "I disagree, I just needed to know who was willing to work with me. I didn't need to know why or for how long." The argument is that he knew what to say to be invited into plans. Which was true. We worked together for two votes. And I was now the bigger target than him. He knew what to say to survive three more days. Which is demonstrably true.
Basically playing an underdog game is harder in the sense that you don't have all of the knowledge. But if you can get to the end, you have a far easier sell. Your argument is just around yourself. If you played a dominant game, you are putting yourself into an FTC where you have to either know everything about everyone, or convince the jury that their secret alliance that you didn't know about didn't matter (which... everybody loves their secret alliances. You will never convince them of that).
There is a reason that the FTC performances that make the "I knew everything" argument only win against goats or their own allies who knew less than them. It's too difficult to argue against someone who's given themselves a simpler argument to make. Jonathan learning from Rob clearly came out in how he played. It also helps highlight the flaw in the "Mafioso" archetype. You can only win with that play style if you're against your own less likeable allies.
SPOILER WARNING FOR SURVIVOR 50
Coach finally being voted out after singing and cheering about his haikus felt like winning the superbowl
Who do you think the VA for Arackniss (Angel Dust's brother) will be?
Santino Fontana
Weird Al
Neil Patrick Harris
Lin-Manuel Miranda
Caleb Hyles
Jonathan Young
Other (specify in comments)
@bunny-is-cute
@moodyvoid
@princess-of-the-corner
@helluva-shipyard
@hellaversepolls
@dailyangeldust