MarsAtlas said:
Josh123914 said:
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.
), Cartman commanding Cthulu himself, or...