First, you need to work on your sentiment analysis. I'm not 'outraged'. I would just be less satisfied with the outcome if she won.
Given that you normally post in a very calm manner, I interpret your nonstop complaining about Natalie's almost-win - with a vibe of "how DARE she, she didn't deserve to be in the final 3!!!" as outrage.
Second, Natalie was voted out first because she *wasn't* a good player. She failed to make the social connections that other players made, so she was voted out.
Which she acknowledged at the final tribal council, so it's obvious that she learned from her mistake. If she's ever asked back, I should think she would make sure not to repeat this mistake. Not all returning players learn this.
Then, she benefited from rules that gave advantages to the people voted out earliest that other people voted out did not have.
As one of the first two boots, she also had
disadvantages that the people voted out later didn't have. You need to be strong-willed to put up with Extinction for over a month. As we've seen with the pandemic, some people whine about being in their own homes for a week. They'd never be able to cope with being in a desolate place like that, doing extremely physically demanding challenges.
She wasn't even that good a player in her first game. She survived the early game because her sister got voted out first and then everybody was only targeting people who were still paired up, and didn't have to start playing well that season until the final six.
So what? I'm actually glad that her sister was voted out so we didn't have to put up with 3 months of "TWINNIE!!!" like we did on The Amazing Race.
And yes, I would be just as dissatisfied if Tony got voted out first and came back and won, are you insinuating some kind of sexism or racism in my motivations?
Just anti-Natalieism, to a degree that I find over-the-top incomprehensible. So kindly don't accuse me of accusing you of sexism or racism. They never crossed my mind.
If you dredge up the Survivor 38 thread you'll find I said the EXACT SAME THING when Chris, a white male, was voted out early and came back and won. Chris didn't deserve to win either.
There's a difference between not deserving a win due to being voted out early and coming back and playing well enough to win and not deserving a win due to being voted out early and coming back and winning due to others' mistakes. It's like figure skaters being in 4th place and winning gold because they skated better than anyone else (who also skated well) and winning gold because everyone else fell on their backsides more.
I've seen both happen during the years that I've followed figure skating, and while a win is a win, how you won is important as well, at least to the people directly involved. And given Natalie's acknowledgement of her earlier mistakes, I'd say that counts over people who don't understand what went wrong and what they needed to do to fix it.
I am not attacking Natalie from making the best of the chance she had, I'm attacking the rules for giving such unfair advantages to people who were voted out earlier. Extinction island is a terrible idea, and fire tokens made it even more terrible.
So write to CBS. Engage Jeff Probst on Twitter or FB, and tell him what you think about it. He's a producer, so this is the kind of feedback that's important.
But dissing one of the final 3 just because she took advantage of the rules in ways that the other players were too apathetic, lazy, cautious, or incompetent to do is not reasonable.
