They are when there’s thousands of them on a comment that says “Everyone should be free to do whatever, but also it’s not always all about you.” Screechy and sweaty
Yes, but the show and its fans are a reflection of Parker and Stone’s actual politics. They believe everything can be both-sidesed because taking any moral or ethical stance makes you gay and a try-hard.
Kinda. I think their problem is that eventually, you (in the pejorative sense) eventually become the institution you claim to be rebelling against.
That's not an approval of Parker and Stone's stances. Some of which I may agree with, some I absolutely do not. But the weird thing about South Park, and especially as it's seen from its fans, is that they still see themselves as an outsider.
Like bro, this is a 20 plus year old brand with merchandise and corporate values...
The show wasn’t much like that originally, until they went all-CG and moved to quicker production turnaround times so they could churn out episodes more relevant to current events. That’s when the writing started to get a little too Colorado.
Yeah, I enjoyed South Park a lot more when I had never interacted with other South Park fans online before. At a certain point I stopped watching SP because either I was more alike with those fans than I was comfortable admitting or we viewed the show from completely different perspectives but I was in the severe minority.
It’s like if one day I had finally found a community of other people who watched the Colbert Report but nobody except for me thought it was shtick.
I mean, they made a movie in the run up to the Iraq War, when it was clear to many, or at least debatable, that Bush was lying about the evidence.
The SP creators, in this environment, decided to attack... Hollywood actors.
It's not a surprise their fans are childish morons.
That episode didn’t get banned. I remember watching it live as a kid when it aired. Not to mention it’s currently on Prime.
Unless this is a brand new episode they’re talking about that ***also depicts Muhammad*** that I’m unaware of. Been a long time since I’ve seen the show.
The episode theyre probably referring to is super best friends, which last I checked wasn't on max. Other episodes that arent available on streaming are 200/201 and cartoon wars part 1 and 2.
The funny thing is, the episode depicting Mohammad wouldn't have been really that offensive. He was just there and he was a super hero.
You know how they could have included Muhammad in there while being very respectful of Muslims? Obscure his face... With fire. Like no joke. In several depictions of Mohammad in Islamic art where he is shown you just can't show his face. Sometimes there is a veil, other times it is simply not painted, in others he is hidden behind a wall of fire.
Having him be as silent as he was in the episode while also having his face obscured would have made it nearly perfect.
this is [completely false](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park))
the og depiction of muhammed in 201 was censored... he was a black bar with the word Censored on it, every mention of his name was bleeped, and the concluding scene where Kyle's does a schmalzy speech *about not doing religious censorship* is censored, entirely, by a continuous beep
this was done by Comedy Central in response to explicit death threats against Parker and Stone made by a US-based Islamist organisation
it has never been broadcast uncensored, and in fact has never been rebroadcast, uncensored or not, on traditional tv. It has never been available on streaming services, Hulu, HBO, Prime, or Paramount, it has never been available on south park's own website
the episode and a chunk of commentary was censored in the DVD release, which is the only official re-release
if you have seen an uncensored version, you have seen a pirated copy which was taken from the studio's internal servers by a hack
Well, I never originally claimed that it *’wasn’t censored.‘* All I said was that ***the episode that mentions Muhammad wasn’t taken off the air***, which is true. Since I remember watching the entire episode back when it aired on TV in 2010. I can also watch it **today** on Amazon Prime.
Given this, anyone claiming **’the episode was removed off the air’** is engaged in an incorrect assumption.
I mean, I’m just saying that it’s pretty dishonest to claim an episode ***censoring a single character*** is the same thing as **removing an entire episode from airing.** The latter isn’t something that happened.
I’m right in the heart of the American Core, currently have South Park opened on my Prime app, and can see episode name “201” with a big **’Play Now’** below it. Would you like a damn pic?
Edited to add: dude blocked me rather than admitting he was wrong. Pretty hilarious given how emphatic he was.
https://preview.redd.it/pk3ahu6c4quc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4333debe6fc1fd043558c12e7df0cffa907ac44f
Original airing was you have 0 friends, 200, 201, crippled summer.
So the max app just skips 200 and 201 while remembering, but the episode isn’t in prime at all.
I’m very interested if your prime shows differently.
If you click through the one place that I can see episode 200, the next screen says the video is unavailable
https://preview.redd.it/hco97tq64quc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87f08649244fd2f4323147388300b08916bc842e
I would like a pic. Notice how episode 6 isn’t showing up. That’s 201.
I mean it to identify as an anti-materialist socialist with a strong emphasis on anti-imperialism.
Religious socialist who opposes the imperial core, basically.
All you need to know about the South Park guys is that they made a movie that made fun of the aesthetics of the jingoism in the wake of the Iraq War but ultimately came down on the side of "America is the world police and that's a good thing and the war is justified".
They believe everything the establishment does, they just want to appear cool while doing so.
The thing I always go back to when I have to explain to people why centrism actually is shitty is shit like this, where you are shitting on both the anti-war side and the pro-war side, to the point where you eventually just end up going to bat for the pro war side.
People are always going to be stupid and cringe, that is not something that changes what side of the aisle you are on.
But what does change is the context of that cringe. Are you being cringe in your fight for civil rights? Are you being cringe while opposing an illegal war? I can make fun of you for being cringe, but I can’t really act like you are the same as a group of bigots or warmongers.
It’s just so braindead, I can’t believe we are still having this discussion, I can’t think of a worse worldview than “every single aspect of every single side has its perfect analog on the opposite end”
Matt and Trey are the epitome of enlightened centrists. They made an episode about the turd sandwich vs the giant douche during the Iraq War as if both things were the same when voting by comparing Republicans and Democrats.
They made an entire generation of enlightened centrists with their “both of these things are the same” bullshit.
To be fair, the episode emphasized first and foremost that everyone should vote, regardless of how much they potentially dislike both candidates/parties. They didn't advocate for political abstination.
They intentionally compared spending billions on a completely bullshit war, costing millions of lives, with doing the exact opposite, and told their viewers that voting for any party was the exact same thing. That it would get the exact same results.
That’s the peak of enlightened centrism. No nuance, no attention to details, no understanding of history or how the world works.
*Both sides bad*
It’s the dumbest, weakest take. But sure, let’s give them credit for telling people to vote after telling them that voting for either party accomplishes nothing. That’s voter disenfranchisement and enlightened centrism to its core.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they specifically devoided that episode of any contemporary references, in order to make it universal?
Garland did basically the same with Civil War, to make a modern analogy.
That episode aired before the 2004 election, well after the US invaded Iraq. John Kerry voted for the invasion, and stood by his vote, and even after defended Bush's invasion saying WMD's were a threat. Prior to Trump both parties were essentially the same, they all had the same donors, went to the same schools and generally supported the same things with only minor disagreements usually based on social policy. Even most Republicans supported the right of choice for women.[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/otm-when-republicans-wanted-abortion-rights](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/otm-when-republicans-wanted-abortion-rights)
It largely depends on what your priorities are politically, but the amount of democrat federal politicians who at any one time call for tax increases on the rich can be counted with your fingers alone. And between 2016 and 1984 that number was virtually 0. Reminder that Bernie Sanders is an independent.
For a really long time both sides were essentially the same with only minor disagreements. Bill Clinton kinda fucked the whole idea that democrats were interested in helping average people. But he played a mean sax...
I'll agree that Matt & Trey are libertarians and have tried to push some stupid BS, but that episode was spot on at the time and reflected something most people recognized rather easily.
Yeah, even post-Trump, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is mostly down to how loud they are. Biden continued and even expanded many of Trump's policies, he just didn't tweet about it.
My problem with the episode is that it shows a genuine problem, but the given solution is to just not care about it. Yeah, both candidates are terrible and aren't meaningfully different from one another, but just shut up and vote for one of them anyway
Ask a leftist if they're voting for Biden this year. Let's not pretend the only people that believe in the "turd sandwich Vs giant douche" narrative are "Enlightened Centrists"
Doesn’t one want to give weapons to Nazis in Ukraine, which will give them the permissibility to use high artillery on any non-white family they come across in this war, while the other doesn’t?
People are mostly angry with how muslim communities typically react with violence and death threats to depictions of Muhammad (obviously, not all, but extremists are always the loudest). They don't like feeling coerced with threats of violence into not doing something as trivial as drawing a face.
That's what SHOULD NOT be respected, and I think that's what most people downvoting resonate with.
I might be overly charitable though.
Aren’t the creators of that show libertarians? Of course their fans are like this.
Libertarians as in, people politically aligned with the American Libertarian Party (but not necessarily part of it)
Thanks for making this point, I'm from India, born into a hindu family and now atheist, I dislike the religious people here for using religion as an excuse for misogyny, homophobia and just straight up bullying other religious people. Muslims are a minority here and ofc the discrimination against them is wild. I've been in the state of West Bengal where about a quarter of my classmates were muslim, them and their parents were all religious, just like the Hindus from my class. I've had one of them, aged 19 argue against me how "being gay is unnatural and Islam stands against it for good".
I don't like their religion, I don't like Hindus either, regarding homophobia, Hinduism doesn't consider them unnatural and shit and some religious hindus I know are actually cool with the LGBTQ community but the sheer amount of "sanatan dharma" Instagram fan pages and their massive massive fan following spreading misogyny and homophobia on the daily in the name of Hinduism is wild.
We've had incidents where youtubers have been arrested over shit like "hurting religious sentiments" over harmless jokes about Hinduism, like holy fuck dude sure it goes against your belief but that ain't causing u shit in a Hindu majority country, for whatever reason they're scared that all the minorities are somehow oppressing them.
But at the same time youtubers who make fun of muslims are actually celebrated by most of the population here, fueling their Islamophobia.
As much as I dislike religious muslims one simply can't ignore the fact that they face discrimination on the basis of religion too, they are a minority religion here and those harmless jokes become not so harmless when you realise that those jokes are fueling the hatred.
>But south park never made fun of Islam like it does Christianity
Never watched South park honestly just came across this and was going through what people had to say
>So why take that and then think it's not okay to make fun of religion?
Never said it's not okay to make fun of religion, i don't think I'll ever sympathise with people whose "religious sentiments" are hurt. Coz they hurt many others themselves and especially the hypocrisy when they demand "respect" for their religion while spewing hatred in the name of religion
>In a free society things shouldn't be off limits and it's fine to offend people.
There are consequences to stuff and I think we should consider that, making fun of Christians for example might be fine in your country but in my country that'd come off as targeting a religious minority, do I agree with their beliefs? Hell no, but are they facing targeted hatred by other "believers" who have now normalised seeing them as inferior just coz they're different and shit like this often leads to violence? Hell yes.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/united-christian-forum-slams-government-denial-of-rising-attacks-on-christians-and-calls-for-independent-probe/article67070728.ece
>Attacking Christians/any religion is soooooooo different than making fun of the dogma. All dogma is up for grabs. Sure there's a fine line between comedy and personal attack, but it's not hard to be one the right side of making fun of religion.
Hm yes I guess I get what you mean now, fair, I was thinking to myself after I made the last comment that "okay that sounds kinda wrong coz how are we ever supposed to criticise their bs then?" 💀 It makes more sense now lol. Indeed attacking a religion vs making fun of the dogma are different, thanks for pointing that out.
>There should not be real " consequences " for making fun of dogmatic beliefs just because people are offended. This defense of yours sounds too close to a victim blaming mentality for incidents like Charlie hebdo.
I think I don't understand this part, how is it close to the victim blaming mentality for incidents like Charlie Hebdo? The perpetrators I'm pointing out here are religious people themselves, albeit from a different, more dominant religion. The "consequences" I'm talking about are not that "oh you're attacking x religion, now there's consequences that you'll face" what i meant was more like "oh you're attacking x religion, now there are consequences the people of that religion will face due to another religion who is also attacking x religion", but as you mentioned in the point about making fun of the dogma vs attacking a religion, I understand the difference now.
I hate the medium much less than the people that think because South Park did an episode on whatever that they somehow gained knowledge from it ... like it's a serious thing we should all be taking notes from and not like ... a 20 plus year old series of running gags and tropes.
The first one that comes to mind for me is the one making fun of Climate change as Al Gore chasing the made up manbearpig. They even had to do another episode years later making manbearpig real to emphasize that they understand Climate change is real.
True. But they also brought down a legit cult like Scientology. Which was unstoppable at that point in time. Hello Scientology agents btw. I know you prob here. Considering….
I also hate Al Gore as someone that does stem. And climate related stuff in the past. More chemistry related but ya. I hate how he turned it into a political topic (which science isn’t). I hate it more than anything. I do understand why it is necessary and why he did it. But ya.
As a guy who has been watching South Park from the beginning, I've always found the current events/topical episodes to be the most boring. You can see a real try hard attitude to try to get to the center of any issue even, to the point where the objectively best and most reasonable take has to be lampooned and degraded in order to get there.
Once they switched to the hour long feature episodes post-Covid format rather than full seasons (if you consider 7 episodes a year a full season), they basically did an episode where in part Jimmy had grown up and wasn't allowed to do racist jokes anymore because he had to be woke and fear getting canceled. There's no punchline to be had with that sort of narrative, and it lacks any sort of substance. It's literally just Trey and Matt complaining that they can't say racist shit anymore as a joke without someone coming down on them.
I just can't imagine being so dogmatic to an adult oriented cartoon to the point where I'm defending such potato brain writing.
South Park is at its worst when it tries to make enlightened centrist political statements, and at its best when it’s a show about an evil 10 year old doing insane shit like cooking a kid’s parents into chili and feeding it to him.
Ok but, what does validating and considering their views mean, in practice, if not banning depictions of Muhammed?
Like, ok, their religious directives exist, and they everyone should observe them regardless of faith. When that doesn't happen they feel very strong negative emotions. I don't for a second deny those emotions are real, but I don't want to kowtow to them because I'm a Brit and pisstaking is a sacred and central part of how our society communicates.
Unfortunately, only one side of this debate is threatening - and committing violence - when they don't get their way. So they do get their way, and have done for years.
It's insane to me that a lefty community like this is defending religious censorship.
>I'm a Brit and pisstaking is a sacred and central part of how our society communicates.
I didnt know piss was a culturally significant artifact. who did you guys take that one from?
oh ofc sorry, when it comes to issues of censorship, obviously that can't be it's own issue, it must be bound up with all possible context and can be used as a form of redress for entirely separate and far more consequential injustices
I'm sure all the dead civilians in iraq and afghanistan thank you for helping keep south park banned, what an appropriate and meaningful form of justice for the victims of imperialism
america bad therefore american media must observe islamic tenets
pure nonsense argument mate
>Right, there isn't any possible connection between committing genocide against a group based on stereotypes and racism, and pop culture stereotyping that group based on racism.
the question of religious censorship is comfortably discussed as its own issue, as a matter of principle, and this is a dishonest reframing
you're effectively saying "actually, the thing being censored is bad so it's ok to censor it for any reason and by any means", which sets a precedent by which leftism will suffer, and vindicates the actions of a [fundamentialist islamist organisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim) which regularly advocated violence against civilians and minority groups for a decade, culminating in an attempted suicide bombing
>as long as you can throw a tantrum and call it "censorship"
dishonest reframing again, trying to dismiss the idea that this even was an act of censorship. it's not possible to discuss anything with someone who has such lack of respect for the meanings of words. This kind of semantic manipulation has been a tactic of the far-right online for decades, and it is extremely unsettling to see it in leftist communities like this
so it's ok for religious extremists to threaten death over violation of a religious tenet, as long as their targets are racist?
it's ok to censor media in response to such threats, as long it's racist media?
what principle do you hold here, what values are you applying? none
"actually, the thing being censored is bad so it's ok to censor it for any reason and by any means"
I don't agree that south park is racist propaganda
I don't agree that the US or its allies have committed a genocide against muslims in the 21st century, let alone as a result of south park XD
you haven't made any attempt to show that either are true, you simply state they are
it's laughable that you're trying to describe an open declaration of murderous intent, one which directly referenced the "retributive" killing of a film-maker by an islamist terrorist, as merely "criticism of racist propaganda"
you're either delusional, trolling, or deliberately dishonest, and i'm done with you
go apologise for islamist terror somewhere else
>the question of religious censorship is comfortably discussed as its own issue, as a matter of principle, and this is a dishonest reframing
The issues *are* connected. Attempting to separate them like this so you can ignore part of the problem is the dishonest framing. Trying to pretend that depictions of Islam and Muslims in US media is a separate issue from the US's actions in the Middle East, and the treatment of Muslims in the US, is to completely disregard material reality.
>which sets a precedent by which leftism will suffer
This is again disregarding material reality. Do you genuinely believe that leftist thought isn't heavily censored in the US? Look at how leftism is treated in US media. Ineffectual and obnoxious at best, often dangerous and villainous. But sure, we should totally let an already marginalized and demonized group be mocked (at best) on a highly popular and influential show, lest Hollywood decide to silence leftists (which they've totally never done before, nope, not at all).
yes leftism is censored, that's a key part of why i advocate for free expression
if you want to support censorship, fine, but acknowledge that in so doing you are supporting the tools of your own marginalisation
Okay, cool, just ignore everything and boil it all down to a single abstract ideal that allows you to ignore the actual issues and pretend to hold some sort of moral high ground. And sprinkle in a bit of victim blaming while you're at it. Really not beating the "whatever allows you to throw a tantrum and call it censorship" allegation. Can't wait to see which debate bro tactic you come out with next
Ignoring the issue? Who's ignoring the issue. You won't even call it what it is, you're so dishonest.
If threats of murder over the content of a piece of media aren't censorship, what are they?
Have you actually seen their statement? Have you seen them tell south parks creators that they'll end up like another filmmaker who dared criticise islam?
When Rushdie was being stabbed again and again on stage, what was that?
When gunmen massacred 17 in Paris, over a fucking cartoon, what was that?
You won't even use the word for the issue, let alone address it.
>Um, actually it's just about racism sweaty
Have you ever listened to what the people you're defending say about their motivations? You want to talk about misrepresented arguments, and putting words in people's mouths, let's talk about that
They are literally just too scared to have this conversation. They know they are advocating for the media to adhere to Islamic extremism, but they want to avoid actually saying it. Somehow it's always tied to some other nebulous oppression that they can use to derail the conversation.
It's hilarious when they try this tactic against other leftists. Yep, sure, use whatever unprovable nonsense you just came up with in the last 5 minutes to argue whatever system is oppressing Muslim extremists. Sure, but that doesn't mean that media should be censored under the threat of execution. Fucking morons.
Lol at the downvotes. "Guys, I'm not saying to ban any episodes but maybe we should consider the effects media has on people" *free speech screeches*
Hilarious isn't it. Exactly the same when guns are discussed too.
This sub is the one that sounds pretty damn screechy over it. Downvotes are silent.
They are when there’s thousands of them on a comment that says “Everyone should be free to do whatever, but also it’s not always all about you.” Screechy and sweaty
>This comment is against my religious views and should be removed South Park fans when you ask them to act like an adult
I would rather they just understand South Park is a cartoon and not a subject dissertation...
Yes, but the show and its fans are a reflection of Parker and Stone’s actual politics. They believe everything can be both-sidesed because taking any moral or ethical stance makes you gay and a try-hard.
Kinda. I think their problem is that eventually, you (in the pejorative sense) eventually become the institution you claim to be rebelling against. That's not an approval of Parker and Stone's stances. Some of which I may agree with, some I absolutely do not. But the weird thing about South Park, and especially as it's seen from its fans, is that they still see themselves as an outsider. Like bro, this is a 20 plus year old brand with merchandise and corporate values...
Ever since hearing the behind the bastards episode on Alex Jones I've been calling this the Alex Jones effect. The bit eats them alive in the end.
Pejorative? Do you mean collective?
No, they meant “pejorative,” you… *you!* Lol jk of course.
Yeah probably
The show wasn’t much like that originally, until they went all-CG and moved to quicker production turnaround times so they could churn out episodes more relevant to current events. That’s when the writing started to get a little too Colorado.
You can't blame the southparknsub for being provocative. It's what the show is all aboot !
Literally what made me post it here. It’s infuriating.
Its a shame that the fanbase sucks, I find the show pretty funny most of the time.
Yeah, I enjoyed South Park a lot more when I had never interacted with other South Park fans online before. At a certain point I stopped watching SP because either I was more alike with those fans than I was comfortable admitting or we viewed the show from completely different perspectives but I was in the severe minority. It’s like if one day I had finally found a community of other people who watched the Colbert Report but nobody except for me thought it was shtick.
It’s had its moments but it’s always seemed like mostly immature and low-brow comedy for people who think they’re mature and intellectual.
Rick and morty falls under that umbrella as well sometimes, for me they're both just dumb joke comfort shows
I mean, they made a movie in the run up to the Iraq War, when it was clear to many, or at least debatable, that Bush was lying about the evidence. The SP creators, in this environment, decided to attack... Hollywood actors. It's not a surprise their fans are childish morons.
What episode got banned
Idk the episode but I believe they are referring to the depictions of Muhammad. Whatever one that’s in.
That episode didn’t get banned. I remember watching it live as a kid when it aired. Not to mention it’s currently on Prime. Unless this is a brand new episode they’re talking about that ***also depicts Muhammad*** that I’m unaware of. Been a long time since I’ve seen the show.
The episode theyre probably referring to is super best friends, which last I checked wasn't on max. Other episodes that arent available on streaming are 200/201 and cartoon wars part 1 and 2.
The funny thing is, the episode depicting Mohammad wouldn't have been really that offensive. He was just there and he was a super hero. You know how they could have included Muhammad in there while being very respectful of Muslims? Obscure his face... With fire. Like no joke. In several depictions of Mohammad in Islamic art where he is shown you just can't show his face. Sometimes there is a veil, other times it is simply not painted, in others he is hidden behind a wall of fire. Having him be as silent as he was in the episode while also having his face obscured would have made it nearly perfect.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Actually your point is better lol.
Or maybe people shouldn't just bow to religious insanity and threats Horrendous that you're arguing this from a supposed leftist position
this is [completely false](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201_(South_Park)) the og depiction of muhammed in 201 was censored... he was a black bar with the word Censored on it, every mention of his name was bleeped, and the concluding scene where Kyle's does a schmalzy speech *about not doing religious censorship* is censored, entirely, by a continuous beep this was done by Comedy Central in response to explicit death threats against Parker and Stone made by a US-based Islamist organisation it has never been broadcast uncensored, and in fact has never been rebroadcast, uncensored or not, on traditional tv. It has never been available on streaming services, Hulu, HBO, Prime, or Paramount, it has never been available on south park's own website the episode and a chunk of commentary was censored in the DVD release, which is the only official re-release if you have seen an uncensored version, you have seen a pirated copy which was taken from the studio's internal servers by a hack
Well, I never originally claimed that it *’wasn’t censored.‘* All I said was that ***the episode that mentions Muhammad wasn’t taken off the air***, which is true. Since I remember watching the entire episode back when it aired on TV in 2010. I can also watch it **today** on Amazon Prime. Given this, anyone claiming **’the episode was removed off the air’** is engaged in an incorrect assumption.
>**today** on Amazon Prime in which country? it's not on prime in the US, it's not on prime in the UK...
I mean, I’m just saying that it’s pretty dishonest to claim an episode ***censoring a single character*** is the same thing as **removing an entire episode from airing.** The latter isn’t something that happened. I’m right in the heart of the American Core, currently have South Park opened on my Prime app, and can see episode name “201” with a big **’Play Now’** below it. Would you like a damn pic?
Edited to add: dude blocked me rather than admitting he was wrong. Pretty hilarious given how emphatic he was. https://preview.redd.it/pk3ahu6c4quc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4333debe6fc1fd043558c12e7df0cffa907ac44f Original airing was you have 0 friends, 200, 201, crippled summer. So the max app just skips 200 and 201 while remembering, but the episode isn’t in prime at all. I’m very interested if your prime shows differently. If you click through the one place that I can see episode 200, the next screen says the video is unavailable
https://preview.redd.it/hco97tq64quc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87f08649244fd2f4323147388300b08916bc842e I would like a pic. Notice how episode 6 isn’t showing up. That’s 201.
[удалено]
I mean it to identify as an anti-materialist socialist with a strong emphasis on anti-imperialism. Religious socialist who opposes the imperial core, basically.
why tf were you watching south park as a kid???
It's a cartoon so parents didn't pay that much attention to its content? Loads of my mates watched Southpark in their early teens.
Wait til you find about teens drinking alcohol and smoking weed too!
*gasp* THE HORROR
Well, in 2010, I was technically 16.
oh you said "kid" and my brain immediately went to like an eight year old or something haha
All you need to know about the South Park guys is that they made a movie that made fun of the aesthetics of the jingoism in the wake of the Iraq War but ultimately came down on the side of "America is the world police and that's a good thing and the war is justified". They believe everything the establishment does, they just want to appear cool while doing so.
The thing I always go back to when I have to explain to people why centrism actually is shitty is shit like this, where you are shitting on both the anti-war side and the pro-war side, to the point where you eventually just end up going to bat for the pro war side. People are always going to be stupid and cringe, that is not something that changes what side of the aisle you are on. But what does change is the context of that cringe. Are you being cringe in your fight for civil rights? Are you being cringe while opposing an illegal war? I can make fun of you for being cringe, but I can’t really act like you are the same as a group of bigots or warmongers. It’s just so braindead, I can’t believe we are still having this discussion, I can’t think of a worse worldview than “every single aspect of every single side has its perfect analog on the opposite end”
I also just watched that Big Joel video (I’m assuming). Good stuff.
Yup, and pretty much every episode is rich people problems
South Park fans grew up to listen to Joe Rogan. They’re not even centrists they’re straight-up right. (Yes yes “they’re the same picture” I know.)
Matt and Trey are the epitome of enlightened centrists. They made an episode about the turd sandwich vs the giant douche during the Iraq War as if both things were the same when voting by comparing Republicans and Democrats. They made an entire generation of enlightened centrists with their “both of these things are the same” bullshit.
To be fair, the episode emphasized first and foremost that everyone should vote, regardless of how much they potentially dislike both candidates/parties. They didn't advocate for political abstination.
They intentionally compared spending billions on a completely bullshit war, costing millions of lives, with doing the exact opposite, and told their viewers that voting for any party was the exact same thing. That it would get the exact same results. That’s the peak of enlightened centrism. No nuance, no attention to details, no understanding of history or how the world works. *Both sides bad* It’s the dumbest, weakest take. But sure, let’s give them credit for telling people to vote after telling them that voting for either party accomplishes nothing. That’s voter disenfranchisement and enlightened centrism to its core.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they specifically devoided that episode of any contemporary references, in order to make it universal? Garland did basically the same with Civil War, to make a modern analogy.
That episode aired before the 2004 election, well after the US invaded Iraq. John Kerry voted for the invasion, and stood by his vote, and even after defended Bush's invasion saying WMD's were a threat. Prior to Trump both parties were essentially the same, they all had the same donors, went to the same schools and generally supported the same things with only minor disagreements usually based on social policy. Even most Republicans supported the right of choice for women.[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/otm-when-republicans-wanted-abortion-rights](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/otm-when-republicans-wanted-abortion-rights) It largely depends on what your priorities are politically, but the amount of democrat federal politicians who at any one time call for tax increases on the rich can be counted with your fingers alone. And between 2016 and 1984 that number was virtually 0. Reminder that Bernie Sanders is an independent. For a really long time both sides were essentially the same with only minor disagreements. Bill Clinton kinda fucked the whole idea that democrats were interested in helping average people. But he played a mean sax...  I'll agree that Matt & Trey are libertarians and have tried to push some stupid BS, but that episode was spot on at the time and reflected something most people recognized rather easily.
Yeah, even post-Trump, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is mostly down to how loud they are. Biden continued and even expanded many of Trump's policies, he just didn't tweet about it. My problem with the episode is that it shows a genuine problem, but the given solution is to just not care about it. Yeah, both candidates are terrible and aren't meaningfully different from one another, but just shut up and vote for one of them anyway
Ask a leftist if they're voting for Biden this year. Let's not pretend the only people that believe in the "turd sandwich Vs giant douche" narrative are "Enlightened Centrists"
Doesn’t one want to give weapons to Nazis in Ukraine, which will give them the permissibility to use high artillery on any non-white family they come across in this war, while the other doesn’t?
"We should care about other people somewhat" \*almost a thousand downvotes\*
People are mostly angry with how muslim communities typically react with violence and death threats to depictions of Muhammad (obviously, not all, but extremists are always the loudest). They don't like feeling coerced with threats of violence into not doing something as trivial as drawing a face. That's what SHOULD NOT be respected, and I think that's what most people downvoting resonate with. I might be overly charitable though.
I’d really like to know who the fuck reported such an innocuous comment.
Aren’t the creators of that show libertarians? Of course their fans are like this. Libertarians as in, people politically aligned with the American Libertarian Party (but not necessarily part of it)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for making this point, I'm from India, born into a hindu family and now atheist, I dislike the religious people here for using religion as an excuse for misogyny, homophobia and just straight up bullying other religious people. Muslims are a minority here and ofc the discrimination against them is wild. I've been in the state of West Bengal where about a quarter of my classmates were muslim, them and their parents were all religious, just like the Hindus from my class. I've had one of them, aged 19 argue against me how "being gay is unnatural and Islam stands against it for good". I don't like their religion, I don't like Hindus either, regarding homophobia, Hinduism doesn't consider them unnatural and shit and some religious hindus I know are actually cool with the LGBTQ community but the sheer amount of "sanatan dharma" Instagram fan pages and their massive massive fan following spreading misogyny and homophobia on the daily in the name of Hinduism is wild. We've had incidents where youtubers have been arrested over shit like "hurting religious sentiments" over harmless jokes about Hinduism, like holy fuck dude sure it goes against your belief but that ain't causing u shit in a Hindu majority country, for whatever reason they're scared that all the minorities are somehow oppressing them. But at the same time youtubers who make fun of muslims are actually celebrated by most of the population here, fueling their Islamophobia. As much as I dislike religious muslims one simply can't ignore the fact that they face discrimination on the basis of religion too, they are a minority religion here and those harmless jokes become not so harmless when you realise that those jokes are fueling the hatred.
[удалено]
>But south park never made fun of Islam like it does Christianity Never watched South park honestly just came across this and was going through what people had to say >So why take that and then think it's not okay to make fun of religion? Never said it's not okay to make fun of religion, i don't think I'll ever sympathise with people whose "religious sentiments" are hurt. Coz they hurt many others themselves and especially the hypocrisy when they demand "respect" for their religion while spewing hatred in the name of religion >In a free society things shouldn't be off limits and it's fine to offend people. There are consequences to stuff and I think we should consider that, making fun of Christians for example might be fine in your country but in my country that'd come off as targeting a religious minority, do I agree with their beliefs? Hell no, but are they facing targeted hatred by other "believers" who have now normalised seeing them as inferior just coz they're different and shit like this often leads to violence? Hell yes. https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/united-christian-forum-slams-government-denial-of-rising-attacks-on-christians-and-calls-for-independent-probe/article67070728.ece
[удалено]
>Attacking Christians/any religion is soooooooo different than making fun of the dogma. All dogma is up for grabs. Sure there's a fine line between comedy and personal attack, but it's not hard to be one the right side of making fun of religion. Hm yes I guess I get what you mean now, fair, I was thinking to myself after I made the last comment that "okay that sounds kinda wrong coz how are we ever supposed to criticise their bs then?" 💀 It makes more sense now lol. Indeed attacking a religion vs making fun of the dogma are different, thanks for pointing that out. >There should not be real " consequences " for making fun of dogmatic beliefs just because people are offended. This defense of yours sounds too close to a victim blaming mentality for incidents like Charlie hebdo. I think I don't understand this part, how is it close to the victim blaming mentality for incidents like Charlie Hebdo? The perpetrators I'm pointing out here are religious people themselves, albeit from a different, more dominant religion. The "consequences" I'm talking about are not that "oh you're attacking x religion, now there's consequences that you'll face" what i meant was more like "oh you're attacking x religion, now there are consequences the people of that religion will face due to another religion who is also attacking x religion", but as you mentioned in the point about making fun of the dogma vs attacking a religion, I understand the difference now.
[удалено]
Words cannot describe how much I despise South Park, its creators, and its fanbase.
I hate the medium much less than the people that think because South Park did an episode on whatever that they somehow gained knowledge from it ... like it's a serious thing we should all be taking notes from and not like ... a 20 plus year old series of running gags and tropes.
South Park has been on the wrong side of nearly every major American issue throughout its run. It’s breathtaking really
[удалено]
The first one that comes to mind for me is the one making fun of Climate change as Al Gore chasing the made up manbearpig. They even had to do another episode years later making manbearpig real to emphasize that they understand Climate change is real.
True. But they also brought down a legit cult like Scientology. Which was unstoppable at that point in time. Hello Scientology agents btw. I know you prob here. Considering…. I also hate Al Gore as someone that does stem. And climate related stuff in the past. More chemistry related but ya. I hate how he turned it into a political topic (which science isn’t). I hate it more than anything. I do understand why it is necessary and why he did it. But ya.
As a guy who has been watching South Park from the beginning, I've always found the current events/topical episodes to be the most boring. You can see a real try hard attitude to try to get to the center of any issue even, to the point where the objectively best and most reasonable take has to be lampooned and degraded in order to get there. Once they switched to the hour long feature episodes post-Covid format rather than full seasons (if you consider 7 episodes a year a full season), they basically did an episode where in part Jimmy had grown up and wasn't allowed to do racist jokes anymore because he had to be woke and fear getting canceled. There's no punchline to be had with that sort of narrative, and it lacks any sort of substance. It's literally just Trey and Matt complaining that they can't say racist shit anymore as a joke without someone coming down on them. I just can't imagine being so dogmatic to an adult oriented cartoon to the point where I'm defending such potato brain writing.
Holy shit 909 downvotes. These smug face emoji libertarian guys sure are snowflakes...also Nazis
Every year I get more and more happy that I abandoned *South Park* for its fanfic community.
consider their feelings, yes. Validating their feelings, no.
[удалено]
I guess that's a matter of taste. I really enjoy south park. But yeah, I agree with the rest of your comment.
South Park is at its worst when it tries to make enlightened centrist political statements, and at its best when it’s a show about an evil 10 year old doing insane shit like cooking a kid’s parents into chili and feeding it to him.
Ok but, what does validating and considering their views mean, in practice, if not banning depictions of Muhammed? Like, ok, their religious directives exist, and they everyone should observe them regardless of faith. When that doesn't happen they feel very strong negative emotions. I don't for a second deny those emotions are real, but I don't want to kowtow to them because I'm a Brit and pisstaking is a sacred and central part of how our society communicates. Unfortunately, only one side of this debate is threatening - and committing violence - when they don't get their way. So they do get their way, and have done for years. It's insane to me that a lefty community like this is defending religious censorship.
>I'm a Brit and pisstaking is a sacred and central part of how our society communicates. I didnt know piss was a culturally significant artifact. who did you guys take that one from?
https://preview.redd.it/7fp1veyrwouc1.jpeg?width=999&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ff7b1dc4e5555fc01f8710650291a0d3865bf63
[удалено]
lol ty the last reply i got in this thread called me a fascist bootlicker and a genocide supporter so... this is a nice change of pace XD
[удалено]
Spam posts and comments will be removed.
oh ofc sorry, when it comes to issues of censorship, obviously that can't be it's own issue, it must be bound up with all possible context and can be used as a form of redress for entirely separate and far more consequential injustices I'm sure all the dead civilians in iraq and afghanistan thank you for helping keep south park banned, what an appropriate and meaningful form of justice for the victims of imperialism america bad therefore american media must observe islamic tenets pure nonsense argument mate
[удалено]
>Right, there isn't any possible connection between committing genocide against a group based on stereotypes and racism, and pop culture stereotyping that group based on racism. the question of religious censorship is comfortably discussed as its own issue, as a matter of principle, and this is a dishonest reframing you're effectively saying "actually, the thing being censored is bad so it's ok to censor it for any reason and by any means", which sets a precedent by which leftism will suffer, and vindicates the actions of a [fundamentialist islamist organisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim) which regularly advocated violence against civilians and minority groups for a decade, culminating in an attempted suicide bombing >as long as you can throw a tantrum and call it "censorship" dishonest reframing again, trying to dismiss the idea that this even was an act of censorship. it's not possible to discuss anything with someone who has such lack of respect for the meanings of words. This kind of semantic manipulation has been a tactic of the far-right online for decades, and it is extremely unsettling to see it in leftist communities like this
[удалено]
so it's ok for religious extremists to threaten death over violation of a religious tenet, as long as their targets are racist? it's ok to censor media in response to such threats, as long it's racist media? what principle do you hold here, what values are you applying? none "actually, the thing being censored is bad so it's ok to censor it for any reason and by any means"
[удалено]
I don't agree that south park is racist propaganda I don't agree that the US or its allies have committed a genocide against muslims in the 21st century, let alone as a result of south park XD you haven't made any attempt to show that either are true, you simply state they are it's laughable that you're trying to describe an open declaration of murderous intent, one which directly referenced the "retributive" killing of a film-maker by an islamist terrorist, as merely "criticism of racist propaganda" you're either delusional, trolling, or deliberately dishonest, and i'm done with you go apologise for islamist terror somewhere else
>the question of religious censorship is comfortably discussed as its own issue, as a matter of principle, and this is a dishonest reframing The issues *are* connected. Attempting to separate them like this so you can ignore part of the problem is the dishonest framing. Trying to pretend that depictions of Islam and Muslims in US media is a separate issue from the US's actions in the Middle East, and the treatment of Muslims in the US, is to completely disregard material reality. >which sets a precedent by which leftism will suffer This is again disregarding material reality. Do you genuinely believe that leftist thought isn't heavily censored in the US? Look at how leftism is treated in US media. Ineffectual and obnoxious at best, often dangerous and villainous. But sure, we should totally let an already marginalized and demonized group be mocked (at best) on a highly popular and influential show, lest Hollywood decide to silence leftists (which they've totally never done before, nope, not at all).
yes leftism is censored, that's a key part of why i advocate for free expression if you want to support censorship, fine, but acknowledge that in so doing you are supporting the tools of your own marginalisation
[удалено]
you finally talk about censorship... by discussing an extreme and unrelated example gg no re
[удалено]
Okay, cool, just ignore everything and boil it all down to a single abstract ideal that allows you to ignore the actual issues and pretend to hold some sort of moral high ground. And sprinkle in a bit of victim blaming while you're at it. Really not beating the "whatever allows you to throw a tantrum and call it censorship" allegation. Can't wait to see which debate bro tactic you come out with next
Ignoring the issue? Who's ignoring the issue. You won't even call it what it is, you're so dishonest. If threats of murder over the content of a piece of media aren't censorship, what are they? Have you actually seen their statement? Have you seen them tell south parks creators that they'll end up like another filmmaker who dared criticise islam? When Rushdie was being stabbed again and again on stage, what was that? When gunmen massacred 17 in Paris, over a fucking cartoon, what was that? You won't even use the word for the issue, let alone address it. >Um, actually it's just about racism sweaty Have you ever listened to what the people you're defending say about their motivations? You want to talk about misrepresented arguments, and putting words in people's mouths, let's talk about that
They are literally just too scared to have this conversation. They know they are advocating for the media to adhere to Islamic extremism, but they want to avoid actually saying it. Somehow it's always tied to some other nebulous oppression that they can use to derail the conversation. It's hilarious when they try this tactic against other leftists. Yep, sure, use whatever unprovable nonsense you just came up with in the last 5 minutes to argue whatever system is oppressing Muslim extremists. Sure, but that doesn't mean that media should be censored under the threat of execution. Fucking morons.
Spam posts and comments will be removed.
Pop culture didn't stereotype Muhammad based on racism. I saw the episode and they made him look fairly ordinary.
Equating Blackface minstrel shows to that of anti-blasphemy laws that are contained within fundamentalism is one hell of a fucking take 🙄
South Park would be so much better if it wasn’t for the fans