Janelle has decided that this is still all about who's a good person. "At least Boogie was loyal to someone," she snorts, in the same tone in which you might point out that at least Erika didn't shoot and eat your particular dog. She adds that Mike was loyal to Will, and Erika wasn't loyal to anyone. I have no idea what the ethical import of that is supposed to be. Seriously, what does that mean? You can backstab ten people as long as you choose one that you don't backstab (Mike), but you can't backstab two people if you never commit to another particular person? Which ethical principle is that? It's also incredibly strange, to the point where it's almost amusing, to see Janelle go on this enormous fucking rant to the effect of how awesome Mike is and how much Erika sucks, when Mike is the one who was aligned with her and then evicted her. It's just so uncomfortably clear that she's doing this because she's sitting next to Will. That's the irony of this entire thing. Janelle is snorting with contempt because Erika didn't play honorably, but she is doing it because she wants a boyfriend. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or with acting on it. God love her for wanting to have her toes sucked by Will Kirby, you know? But the idea of trying to pass this off as the upholding of ethical standards and ideas about loyalty when she's under the control of Will just as much as Erika was ever under the control of Mike is just...kind of funny.
The other great thing about the "loyalty" thing is that loyalty only has meaning if you put yourself at some risk. Mike wasn't "loyal" to Will any more than the raccoons on your back porch are "loyal" to your trash cans. Mike stuck to Will because it benefited him, not because he chose to put Will's interests above, or on par with, his own. I don't think any of these people can claim to have shown "loyalty" in the sense that you give up something for someone because you said you would. I know one person on one reality show who has ever done that, and that's Colby. Everybody else is trying to win, which is as it should be. Everybody wanted to win, and I don't get how it's a character flaw that you weren't "loyal" to anyone.
James isn't buying the "loyalty" argument either, which is only one of many times during this hour that I am uncomfortable being on the same side as someone. "It was not a team sport, though," he points out. Danielle basically says the same thing -- that there's no rule against floating, and there's no rule against lying. Of course, if there were a rule against lying, Mike would have broken it approximately four hundred times as often as Erika. Marcellas agrees with Danielle, saying none of them can claim to have gotten out without lying to somebody. Incidentally, if we're giving Mike credit for all of his and Will's game play, shouldn't he be dinged for all of his and Will's lies, meaning that not only has Mike incessantly lied, but he's on the hook for the way Will incessantly lied?