So now, Jonathan and Cirie have a chat in which he presents his case to her in an effort to respond to what Eliza told him, which is that Cirie is being told untrue things by Amanda and Parvati about what the plan is: "It's going to be the five of us to vote off Parvati," he assures her, "because she's got these two guys wrapped around her finger. It's that simple." I think he means "it's that simple" as in, "There is no hidden plan; what I intend is that simple," but I think it comes out sounding like "it's that simple" as in "that's the way it's going to be," which I think is a legitimate miscommunication that contributes to sending this entire thing down a very bad road. Furthermore, Cirie isn't aware that, earlier, Eliza told Jonathan that Cirie is paranoid and needs to be reassured a lot, so Cirie doesn't have the context for what Jonathan's doing here at all. So what he means by "It's going to be [whatever]" is "this is what we genuinely intend to do, I swear" (being "reassuring"), and what she's hearing is "this is how it's going to be; you will fall in line." Jonathan continues by telling Cirie that he's not sure what kinds of stuff Amanda and Parvati are saying to her, but that if anybody is telling her they're going to snake her, they're not. "The plan is a good one," he tells her. Yau-Man comes over and adds that these two pairs of people, taken together, are too powerful. I've seen UN Security Council meetings that aren't this complicated to decode.
Cirie gets kind of pissy here, and tells them, "The same argument you're using, they're using the same argument." They are? They're using an argument that Yau-Man and Jonathan and Ami and Eliza are romantic couples, so it's incredibly dangerous to let them advance together? That seems unlikely to be true. Although I'm sure it wouldn't be any more farfetched than some of the fanfic I suspect is out there. Since Cirie is basically telling Jonathan that the two alliances are both using the same tactics on her, he says, "I'm not going to use any argument; I'm going to use common sense." Which again, I think he means to be like, "This isn't tactics; I'm basing my plan on what makes sense for all of us," but it's not coming off that way. He doesn't realize that Cirie has a huge chip on her shoulder about Jonathan, convinced that he's going to try to play her (even though right now, he's not) and that she is just waiting for him to say something she can call bullshit on. You can see that Cirie's sitting there with this bitchface on, all head-cocked, internally dismissing whatever Jonathan's going to say before he's even said it. So although he's trying to make an argument based on logic, she's interpreting it as untrue and, because she thinks it's untrue, she thinks his trying to sell bullshit to her is insulting. So what he thinks is a calm explanation of what he genuinely thinks is playing, to her, like he thinks she's stupid enough to believe what he's saying. And then from his perspective, if there's anything Jonathan is hypersensitive about, it's the "you're a rat" moralistic crap from his original season, and I think he's beginning to sense that this is where Cirie is going with all of this -- that he's an untrustworthy person in some fundamental way (which, just as he pointed out himself, is as dumb as trying to make someone the villain of Monopoly), and as soon as he smells that attitude in the discussion, he starts to get really disgusted by it and he gets impatient, and now you have...a thing.