Is South Park getting weird...er?

[Josh123914]

So omission of satirising something now means support?

When you satirize a serious issue five times and never address the far, far more dangerous opponents of the issue then people are going to, reasonably, assume that they're on the side of the latter. On one hand, a single former politician being a greedy hypocrite. On the other hand, lots of federal politicians blocking legislation to deal with a serious issue of global scale for future generations using scientific comprehension inferior to that of a fourth grader.

South Park is very good at making fun of things, and bringing light to problems with even the "correct" side. Aside from Bill Maher, a lot of comics are hesitant to point out flaws in their own allies.

Well seeing that the politicians that they're most prone to side with are the ones who are denying one of the serious, global issues of this generation then they're clearly doing a shitty job of pointing out flaws in their allies.

You forgot to address this;

Get a grip, look at the implications that has for literally every content creator that hasn't taken a stance on an issue. I think in these episodes they're more anti-hysteria and eco-smugness of greens than the truth of climate change itself.

So what are you actually arguing here? What political leanings do you see Parker and Stone as having? Because to my knowledge, none of the kids ever stood up and made a passionate speech about how Climate Change is a non-issue, and what you're saying here is that because they've never devoted a full episode to a side of discussion that had been largely discredited by academics DECADES before the show first aired, it somehow points to them being Conservatives and thus not worth listening to.

 

[Josh123914]

You forgot to address this;

Get a grip, look at the implications that has for literally every content creator that hasn't taken a stance on an issue. I think in these episodes they're more anti-hysteria and eco-smugness of greens than the truth of climate change itself.

No, I addressed both. Addressing them again because they popped up again in another sentence would be redundant. Stone and Parker satirized climate change proponents at least five times while ignoring people whom a far, far greater threat than any hysterical tree-hugger, which are the denialists. It would be reasonable for anybody to draw the conclusion that they're in the climate change denial camp based on the recurring pattern.

So what are you actually arguing here? What political leanings do you see Parker and Stone as having?

Because to my knowledge, none of the kids ever stood up and made a passionate speech about how Climate Change is a non-issue

So you think a character literally needs to get up on a soapbox for a writer to be trying to make some sort of point? This in a comedy show no less? Comedy, which always requires something to be at the butt of the joke?

and what you're saying here is that because they've never devoted a full episode to a side of discussion that had been largely discredited by academics DECADES before the show first aired, it somehow points to them being Conservatives and thus not worth listening to.

They've never devoted a sentence to address climate change denialists while devoting entire episodes, almost creating an entire film, in which they ridicule proponents of climate change. Furthermore, I must iterate again that discredited =/= without power. They've done shows on bullshit artists who still have influence at the time (and many of them still do) before, such as Scientology as a money cult and the "I talk to the dead psychics". Seems to be a rather stark contrast both in regards to the "we're opportunity offenders" claim and it certainly doesn't ring true with your point that they wouldn't address discredited people/organizations that have influence.

Because people like Greenpeace, the psychic, and Whale Wars are in the national conversation! Climate change is important, but what you're ignoring is that people like John Oliver and countless other pundits are around to make the point very easily that there is no debate whether or not its happening. The downside of shows like that is there isn't much room for middle-ground, and admitting your side has faults only dents Climate Change's credible arguments.
What South Park does regarding this issue is to put a check on well-meaning people. They may be on the right side of the issue, but their actions only harm their whole side's position. Where other media don't pick up the slack, South Park usually steps in, which isn't difficult since it only takes them a couple days to make an episode.
Just from this season, they were able to drop in that Caitlyn Jenner killed someone before transitioning. Something that wasn't mentioned as she was congratulated post-operation.

The character that gets up on the soapbox is exactly whenever the creators are making a point. Kyle standing up and giving a speech has become its own joke recently. South Park isn't a subtle enough or even well-enough planned show for what you're stating to come about. For what you're saying to happen, all the other writers on the show over the years would also have to be in on it, rather than the obvious be true; Extremists are easier to poke fun at.

And for the record, they lost the voice actor of Chef to Scientology. Maybe the fact that one of their employees threatened them with resignation to avoid speaking ill of Scientology incentivised them to blow the gasket on that whole cult?

Want them to make a whole episode about Climate Change deniers? E-mail them! They take what their fans want into account, in fact Craig x Tweek would not have happened if not for the fact that on Deviantart that pairing had somehow been running for about 10 years.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

They claim that they're "equal opportunity offenders" and somebody in this thread here even defended them as such when its patently untrue. Its a cowardly lie, an attempt to dismiss criticism of their ideas as if they don't even hold a lot of the opinions that they purport or that they'll target anybody for any rason. Its bollocks. Instead of owning up to their biases they disavow responsibility for their own opinions, lacking any sort of conviction.

Here's a superb interview with them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/matt-stone-trey-parker-ar_n_475744.html

They flat out say that the only reason(s) they tend to mock liberal ideas over conservative ones is because:
A: Basically everyone else is already mocking conservative ideas. As they say: "I think sometimes we do gravitate towards things other people haven't done and a lot of times that makes us gravitate away from ripping on Republicans cause it's just done very well by a ton of people."
B: It's funnier, because liberals so frequently tend to be ultra smug/holier than thou, and thus shitting on them is more entertaining.

And I'm not sure where you got the notion that "equal opportunity offender" also means they must mock all ideas equally. They're going to mock whichever ones they can get the most laughs out off.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

ITT: Matt and Trey are cowards for not making the same jokes everyone else on CC makes.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

ITT: Matt and Trey are cowards for not making the same jokes everyone else on CC makes.

No, they're cowards for being too afraid to say that they just target things that they think deserve to be targeted. Its the basis of comedy that you ridicule what you think deserving of ridicule. The whole "we target everybody" notion is an attempt to disavow responsibility for what they say, acting like what they put on TV is outside of their control and that they don't have opinions about anything.

As Ihateregistering pointed out in the interview they gave, they will target anyone. They end up targeting with their limited time slot people and ideas that tend to not get targeted by other people. So it's less "they don't target certain ideologies" and more "they try to differentiate themselves". If no one poked fun at climate change deniers, they'd step up and do it. But since you can get those jokes by turning on CC at almost any other time besides their time slot, they'd rather make fun of Prius drivers.

 

[Josh123914]

Because people like Greenpeace, the psychic, and Whale Wars are in the national conversation! Climate change is important, but what you're ignoring is that people like John Oliver and countless other pundits are around to make the point very easily that there is no debate whether or not its happening.

This is 2015. The show started back in 1997. Its older than a lot of people here. ManBearPig was 2006. Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow was 2005, two days after the very first episode of The Colbert Report. Ten years ago. Not only is it eight years into their show's tenure but it predates the trend of comedic news shows. Not only has climate change been in the national conversation many, many times in the back 18 years but a lot of it even predates the trend of political punditry comedy shows you're mentioning.

Maybe it's hard to poke fun at something that's totally world-ending and something most of the target demographic is unanimous on?
EDIT: Without it coming off as forced or half-assed?

The downside of shows like that is there isn't much room for middle-ground, and admitting your side has faults only dents Climate Change's credible arguments.

What? Do you know what the primary complaint lobbed against South Park politics is? Its that they use the golden mean too often. I'm sure that they could figure out a way to find a middle-ground on the subject of overzealous climate change proponents and climate change denialists but they haven't done so when they've had multiple opportunities to do so.

This is really simple. When 2 sides are in conflict in South Park, they have rather blatant flaws which the main characters can point out and soapbox over. They aren't going to golden mean an issue with a clear victor.

What South Park does regarding this issue is to put a check on well-meaning people. They may be on the right side of the issue, but their actions only harm their whole side's position. Where other media don't pick up the slack, South Park usually steps in, which isn't difficult since it only takes them a couple days to make an episode.

Frankly I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

Sometimes even the side you are on has flaws, and that is forgotten about when fighting a worse opposition. South Park has the platform to signal boost these flaws and get people talking about it.

Just from this season, they were able to drop in that Caitlyn Jenner killed someone before transitioning. Something that wasn't mentioned as she was congratulated post-operation.

Yeah and she was acquitted of responsibility for that. Its almost like sometimes accidents occur where people die and there's nobody to blame. But no, we have to find a way to disparage and discredit a transgender person without sounding like a transphobic asshole, basic reasoning skills and human decency be damned. Not that South Park skimped on that either.

People didn't know that Caitlyn's driving led to somebody's death before transitioning. A lot more people know about it now, and if you think South Park bringing it up after the media circus ignored that makes the creators transphobic assholes, that's your pejorative, not mine.

The character that gets up on the soapbox is exactly whenever the creators are making a point.

Yes, but thats a time it occurs, not the only time such a thing occurs. Nobody stands up on a soapbox in the NSA episode but are you really going to say that there was no point being made in that episode? Its like saying that because nobody stands on a soapbox in whatever given book or movie that there's no point being made in it. Nobody stands up on a soapbox and says "war is bad and not to be glamourized" in Saving Private Ryan but the audience still gets that message by seeing the most gruesome, brutal war sequence ever put to film. Nobody says "nature conservation is good" in Jurassic Park yet its the message it impresses on the audience. You don't need to stand on a soapbox to make a point.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Everyone already knows Global warming is a problem. You don't need somebody to stand up in "2 Days Before The Day After Tomorrow" because the humor stems from idiots misunderstanding Climate Change to be something much more immediate and violent.

Kyle standing up and giving a speech has become its own joke recently. South Park isn't a subtle enough or even well-enough planned show for what you're stating to come about.

Oh come on now, even you know that this is untrue. You know that Al Gore's caricatured fanaticism about ManBearPig isn't there "just because", its there to reflect upon his, to put it lightly, alarmist behavior regarding a specific issue he think is of great concern to the world. Even if you don't think they're attacking climate change in that episode and merely attacking climate change alarmism you still recognize that it tackles climate change alarmism without somebody having to get on a soapbox.

Yeah I agree, but that doesn't somehow prove that the creators don't believe in Climate Change.

And for the record, they lost the voice actor of Chef to Scientology. Maybe the fact that one of their employees threatened them with resignation to avoid speaking ill of Scientology incentivised them to blow the gasket on that whole cult?

Wow, you mean somebody got upset when their boss vocally proclaims that their religion is, and I quote, a "scam" to fool "idiots"? What a shock. Its almost like any person who holds any sort of religious or ideological belief would react the same way. If you were working on a project, say, a game with somebody and at one point the main character in the game, the protagonist whom we're supposed to agree with, said "all gamergate supporters are rapists and should be put in prison" and that was the core message of the game you'd get upset too.

Ooh, namedropping Gamergate, I like it.
But no, you have somehow gotten the story backwards. Chef's voice actor told them months beforehand not to diss his religion, and this made them do some digging. They decided it was better to blow the cult wide open to the world than be indirectly censored by a subordinate.

Want them to make a whole episode about Climate Change deniers?

No, not really. I'm just pointing out that the whole "we challenge everything" and the "no target is off-limits" persona is bullshit. It would be like if Jon Stewart said that he was impartial when it came to political issues. Bullshit. That wouldn't mean that his show would bad nor is having a political belief in your show a bad but its a transparently false claim nonetheless. It would be an appeal-to-moderacy because he would've been too afraid to stand up for his beliefs. Jon Stewart has never claimed to be impartial, however. He, for the duration of his presence on his show, owned it. He didn't hide and cower and wasn't afraid of what people would say about him. He owned it. Thats something Stone and Parker are apparently afraid to do. They make a transparent appeal to moderacy, saying that they don't target anything in particular, that nothing tickles their fancy. Horsecock. They're allowed to have their opinions and they would be better if they weren't being cowardly about them but they'd rather take the intellectually dishonest route where they lower themselves by acting like nothing in particular influences their opinins and it lowers us because they think we're stupid enough to fall for it, which, sadly, they're right about. I don't give a flying fuck if they tackle climate change deniers but I do give a flying fuck when they or others pretend like they don't have an opinion on the matter of climate change.

They have made their opinions known in the past, particularly being devout Libertarians and Anti-Religion. Why would Climate Change be any different?

And they aren't going to pander to some non-existent group who think nobody is 100% correct on any of the issues. They aren't going to pretend some facts are disputed because some people don't believe them. Sometimes there is just right and wrong on a factual basis.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

This can be summed up with "it's a comedy show and I didn't think I would have to type the implicit 'for a laugh' at the end of 'they'll make fun of anyone'". You're being obtuse.

So it's less "they don't target certain ideologies" and more "they try to differentiate themselves". If no one poked fun at climate change deniers, they'd step up and do it.

Do tell, who was poking fun at these people in 2005? Because majority opinion was still in opposition to the notion of climate change.

Did you watch Comedy Central? Or listen to comedians?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Giant Turd is more about Bono, in fact I can't even recall them making fun of themselves there. They say they won an Emmy but that's not exactly making fun of themselves. That's pretty much like me going "I'm a **** here's my Oscar I won".

I think the thought process was more along the lines of "this is the show they gave an Emmy to, wtf is wrong with these people?"

 

[Rad Party God]

Even wierder than Mecha-Streisand?, or Osama Bin Laden on a Looney Tunes parody, a gerbil traveling through Mr. Slave's bowels (or him swallowing Paris Hilton through his ass... man Mr. Slave is awesome ), Cartman commanding Cthulu himself, or...

Yeah, you get the point.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

This can be summed up with "it's a comedy show and I didn't think I would have to type the implicit 'for a laugh' at the end of 'they'll make fun of anyone'". You're being obtuse.

Comedy is dependant upon philosophy. Whats so hard to understand about that? Most often its you sharing your worldview with others in a way that is comedic rather than immediately thought-provoking and challenging. Even body humour like fart jokes rely upon some understanding of philosophy. Fart jokes in social settings are funny because farting in social settings is taboo. Comedy requires critical thought to create, and the better the comedy the more thought that was put into it. Its not just meaningless words being thrown at the wall in a random order until somebody giggles.

k, so why are you calling them cowards for not making the jokes you want them to make? So far it looks like you're ascribing more political motivation to them than they have based on a misunderstanding of what "we'll make fun of anyone" means.

Did you watch Comedy Central?

Yes. There was one other show at the time that would even touch political hot buttons, and that was The Daily Show.

Or listen to comedians?

Yes, I do. Most of them didn't believe in climate change either. Climate change denial obstructionism in particular I've never seen a single stand-up bit about it. I've seen jokes about it but usually in the form of political cartoons you'd see in newspapers.

I remember seeing jokes about climate change denialists. It was a big issue, comedians made quips if they could work it into something funny.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

No, they've said as much that they make fun of people who get offended (which I'm sure is why they've gone after extreme PC culture in the current season). The people who they like to offend the most are the people that expect them to be moral crusaders. No, they're totally okay with offending people. That's why they say they'll offend anyone.

 

[Josh123914]

Maybe it's hard to poke fun at something that's totally world-ending

They did four episodes on it and wanted to do a movie about it. I think they know how to poke fun at it.

Not in the way you want them to.

and something most of the target demographic is unanimous on?

Gallup, 2005 [http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx] and its practically a three-way split with 31/29/35 as the margin of error puts them in the same range of each other. I'd hardly call it "unanimous". Hell, its 2015 and the "generally exaggerated" category grew from 31% to 42%.

And how many of those people watch South Park?
When was the big event wherein the Prominent Creationist set out the manifesto for how and why Climate Change exists? For a charicature to work, South Park needs a celebrity. Without that, they just have a mean-spirited strawman, which is not funny.

This is really simple. When 2 sides are in conflict in South Park, they have rather blatant flaws which the main characters can point out and soapbox over. They aren't going to golden mean an issue with a clear victor.

If its a clear victor then why has it been so lopsided then?

Because, as said in the interview linked above, Climate Change has been done a million times, and making fun of somebody like Al Gore (who was fading into irrelevance before he came out swinging with AIT) is way more fun for them.

What South Park does regarding this issue is to put a check on well-meaning people. They may be on the right side of the issue, but their actions only harm their whole side's position. Where other media don't pick up the slack, South Park usually steps in, which isn't difficult since it only takes them a couple days to make an episode.

Frankly I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

Sometimes even the side you are on has flaws, and that is forgotten about when fighting a worse opposition. South Park has the platform to signal boost these flaws and get people talking about it.

So why haven't they discussed climate change denial then? Its partially rooted in valid notions, like that the economy would be put at risk by taking environmentally-friendly measures and that environmentally-friendly changes would lead to a negative change in our standards of living. It becomes denialism when they feel like they can't recognize the validity of climate change because it gives the opposition more ground, exactly what you're talking about. Why haven't they addressed climate change denial on these grounds even just once if they've addressed climate change alarmism so many times on these grounds?

Because it's fun. Plain and simple. The general undercurrent of Climate Change denialism is difficult to take on accurately because the reasoning from the masses varies, and no major scientists take the notion seriously. If it isn't funny, or they don't have somewhat recent material to work with, they won't do the episode.

People didn't know that Caitlyn's driving led to somebody's death before transitioning. A lot more people know about it know, and if you think South Park bringing it up after the media circus ignored that makes the creators transphobic assholes, that's your pejorative, not mine.

Why does it matter if somebody died in a car accident which she was involved in where there's nobody to blame? Why does it matter? What point is there to be made in pinning responsibility for a tragedy in which they held no culpability? Its a blatant attack on somebody's character for something outside of their control. It'd be like if Stone or Parker got a car without knowing it had faulty brakes, parked it, it ran over somebody and then people start calling them murderers. Its desperately clinging on anything they can use to attack a person that they already dislike and not look like a gigantic asshole. Stone and Parker are too afraid to say "trannies are nasty" and they can't come up with any character flaws in her aside from that so they decide to turn a tragedy into a homicide and brand them as a murderer. She literally commits vehicular homocide twice in one episode. They're calling her a murderer because its the only thing they can use, at least from their perspective that is.

Are we even watching the same show? Have you watched the first two episodes of just this season? If you have, you'll know why the creators have issues with Jenner. Not even Jenner, just PC culture in general.

Everyone already knows Global warming is a problem. You don't need somebody to stand up in "2 Days Before The Day After Tomorrow" because the humor stems from idiots misunderstanding Climate Change to be something much more immediate and violent.

But we're not talking about the threat of climate change, we're talking about the threat of climate change denialists. We can deal with climate change if people in power don't obstruct solutions. What do they do? They obstruct solutions non-stop. Its not climate change that is the threat, its climate change denialists that are the thread and they are powerful. We've got the entire coal and oil industry, two of the wealthiest industries on the planet, completely invested in climate change denialism. Its been a decade since that episode air, ten years, and very little has been done in the United States to deal with climate change. Ten years of potential progress regarding a long-term issue almost completely wasted due to obstructionists. If nothing changes for the better in a span of ten years regarding a problem on the global scale thats something more deserving of being addressed than any alarmism that was shut down even by climate change proponents ever did.

Well, when it becomes front page news again, Stone and Parker will talk about it again. They are not John Oliver. They're primary goal isn't to bring important news to the public, but to lampoon the idiotic elements of the stuff that is already being talked about. How can you not know this? Characters in the show never investigate anything, they have info reach them from friends, or TV, and then the plot begins. It's a very basic narrative opening that would tell you that South Park by and large doesn't do investigative work without a good reason.

Yeah I agree, but that doesn't somehow prove that the creators don't believe in Climate Change.

They've never shown anything but disdain for anybody who even brings it up. They've dedicated multiple episodes to ridiculing it and tried make a movie ridiculing the notion of climate change. Ten years have passed and they've never so much as a single time made a jab at climate change denialists.

Oh, and another episode they made a jab against climate change that I just remembered, Goobacks, from 2004. They literally call a guy who brings up the possibility of climate change a "fucking retard". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oUqXdG7Xi4]

Oh this is too funny. There is no way you actually watched that episode.
10 years have passed, and Climate Change isn't front page news. Deal with it. Goobacks is satirizing illegal immigrants, but once again they avoided using any nationality by making the immigrants future humans who are a mix of every ethnicity.

That link you provided is evidence of your own misunderstanding. Those people in the meeting are there to be laughed at and made fun of, because they are dumb hicks brainstorming ways to get rid of the immigrants. The global warming suggestion was done to kill the Goobacks off, not a serious plea to stop Climate Change.

And the plan the hicks eventually go with is to have a massive gay orgy outside in order to stop having kids, and thus ensure there wouldn't be any Goobacks from the future to emigrate back in time. You would know this if you watched the whole episode.

Ooh, namedropping Gamergate, I like it.
But no, you have somehow gotten the story backwards. Chef's voice actor told them months beforehand not to diss his religion, and this made them do some digging.

Yes, he just spontaneously asked them to not do an episode on scientology. Just spontaneously. No way it would've been spurred on by already-existing plans to address it. No, it was just a random outburst unrelated to anything at all.

C'mon...

Stop jumping to conclusions.

Tom Cruise has told follow workmates not to diss Scientology, the woman who voices Bart Simpson has warned the Simpsons writers not to ridicule her religion after she converted. Working with somebody for an extended period of time will get you information such as this. You know this is true, which is why you framed your statement with sarcasm that they had this whole episode lined up before they had any reason to, and the Chef VA was victimized and couldn't have possibly played a role in its conception.

They have made their opinions known in the past, particularly being devout Libertarians and Anti-Religion.

Wasn't the whole message of All About Mormons, what is considered one of their best episodes ever, about the positive qualities of faith? Haven't they done other episodes addressing that, like the one where Cartman becomes a preacher because all the kids are afraid of going to hell?

This is what they mean by equal offenders. I should have worded that last bit differently because Anti-religion doesn't really put it into words.
They lampoon religions when necessary, but at the same time consider atheists to be "fucking annoying", because many felt betrayed after the Mormon episode. They showed rather succinctly that Mormons have a religion that is clearly fabricated, but the Mormons shown seem to be an all round happy and positive bunch (certainly happier than the rest of the town), so live and let live. The message I saw there is that Kyle and Stan didn't want Kenny to convert because its a religion built on a lie, but after he sees how happy the Mormons all are, can you really blame Kenny for wanting to be a part of it?

 

[Redryhno]

Wasn't the whole message of All About Mormons, what is considered one of their best episodes ever, about the positive qualities of faith? Haven't they done other episodes addressing that, like the one where Cartman becomes a preacher because all the kids are afraid of going to hell?

This is what they mean by equal offenders. I should have worded that last bit differently because Anti-religion doesn't really put it into words.
They lampoon religions when necessary, but at the same time consider atheists to be "fucking annoying", because many felt betrayed after the Mormon episode. They showed rather succinctly that Mormons have a religion that is clearly fabricated, but the Mormons shown seem to be an all round happy and positive bunch (certainly happier than the rest of the town), so live and let live. The message I saw there is that Kyle and Stan didn't want Kenny to convert because its a religion built on a lie, but after he sees how happy the Mormons all are, can you really blame Kenny for wanting to be a part of it?[/quote]

Hell, there's been numerous episodes that have ended up in Heaven and Hell, and pretty much every one of them has had God say he's a Buddist that lets Mormons in because they're pretty much the only ones that haven't gone batshit insane on everyone else, also he likes paper children arts and crafts. Hell's full of pretty much everyone else. Satan's gay and is honestly one of the more sympathetic characters in the series. Anyone that starts trying to say that they're anything approaching far right wing really has no idea what they're talking about. I haven't watched SP since I was in middle school, and what i"m hearing now is that this sounds like a good time to start watching again if for no other reason to see how their season long arc plays out...

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, they've said as much that they make fun of people who get offended

You mean the deliberate targeting of a group of people for a specific reason? Because that would be completely antithetical to the "no target off limits" approach they say they're doing. "No targets off limits" is supposed to mean "we'll target anybody for any reason" but since they don't target indiscriminately it reads more as "if we targeted something that offended you we didn't really mean what we said".

Saying they'll offend anyone doesn't mean they don't mean to offend people. Saying they like to pick on certain people doesn't mean there are people they don't offend. Your statements do not make sense.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Saying they'll offend anyone doesn't mean they don't mean to offend people. Saying they like to pick on certain people doesn't mean there are people they don't offend. Your statements do not make sense.

When somebody says "equal opportunity offender", which has a meaning used in other phrases like "no holds barred comedy", they mean to imply that they'll strike anybody. Matt Stone and Trey Parker won't strike anybody. They strike people who they think are deserving of it and they gravitate towards liberals because there's a greater market for it. They say they're not being discriminatory on whom they target yet they do. Thats the problem here, that contradiction. Not "they didn't pan these guys I don't like" or "they were mean to somebody I like" or anything like that. They and many of their fans claim that they do something that they simply don't do. The worst part is that they make that claim in an effort to save face, that they're not targeting certain people in particular or even that they may not mean what they say even though they devoted an entire episode to it. They know that its not true, they must know it because they brainstorm and revise and edit before they put something to print.

0 _ 0

I don't follow the logic. At all. They say they don't care who they offend and proceed to not care who they offend. Thus they are cowards. So far the only connecting thread I'm given is that you can tell this is true because they make jokes.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I don't follow the logic. At all. They say they don't care who they offend and proceed to not care who they offend. Thus they are cowards. So far the only connecting thread I'm given is that you can tell this is true because they make jokes.

No, they do pick who they target. They do it because they're human beings who have values. The only way a person with values would target anybody (and I do mean anybody since that is their claim) would be if they simply sold-out their values for something like money. Now this is just personal speculation but they don't strike me as sell-outs. I know that they have values and I don't believe that they're sellouts so that leaves me to conclude that their "equal opportunity offender" statement (or whatever phrase it was they use, many mean the same thing) is false. They themselves may not realize its false, but it is false nonetheless. Since when other people usually use that phrase its their way of saying "if you were offended I didn't mean to, please stay and give me more money" without appearing so desperate so I'm, somewhat cynically, concluding that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are probably using it the same way. Its PR fluff that attempts to sound nice to everybody, and damn ingenius PR fluff at that. When something the comedian did bothers you its meant to come off as "nothing personal, we didn't mean it" and when they haven't bothered you its meant to come off as "I'm not holding back, I'm not afraid to tread new ground that you haven't heard before". Microsoft should've hired whoever came up with the phrase to do their PR for the Xbox One rather than Don "Ruiner of Companies" Mattrick.

See, what makes you think they don't mean it? What they're saying is that they won't go easy just because you're offended. If they didn't mean to offend, they wouldn't repeatedly offend people. So I don't know where that line of thinking comes from. And I still haven't figured out how "we'll offend anyone" translates to "be a sociopath". They're not saying that they're going on a campaign to offend everyone forever, they're saying that "I'm offended" isn't going to get them to stop making fun of you.

 

[Odbarc]

I like the new principal. He adds to the stories where the old one didn't do much.

Why was Butters in that head-cage all episode?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I like the new principal. He adds to the stories where the old one didn't do much.

Why was Butters in that head-cage all episode?

You may have missed the "Safe Space" episode (which you definitely need to watch it's great). In it, Butters tries to commit suicide but just winds up badly injuring himself, hence him wearing the headcage.

 

[Odbarc]

You may have missed the "Safe Space" episode (which you definitely need to watch it's great). In it, Butters tries to commit suicide but just winds up badly injuring himself, hence him wearing the headcage.

No, I saw it but I didn't really pin it together. Never expected that kind of continuity. Maybe it's because of all the original Kenny deaths.

 

[Scytail]

Good hard laugh at the people who think that just because Trey and Matt havent done an episode bashing climate-deniers, they must be some sort of secret Republicans.

I recall an interview done a few years back when they were asked which extreme of the political spectrum they hated more, and Stone said something to the effect of "Y'know we all hate the extreme right, but, I really fucking hate extreme liberals".

Can't fault them there. I'd fall middle-left on the political spectrum and I find the extreme left to be far more insufferable than my political opposites.