you can be strongly in the middle tis very possible. and being in the middle doesnt mean doing nothing despite what others may say.Doopliss64 said:
South Park As A Gated Community
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I can't speak for Bob, only for myself, but if he "hates" the Conservative viewpoint, it's completely understandable. The main Conservative viewpoint boils down to, "Government is the problem, not the solution", and that premise is a lie. I "hate" people who lie, and that's why I "hate" that viewpoint and you should too.Silent Protagonist said:
Can the Government solve all problems? Of course not. Can the Government do bad things? Absolutely, but Governments have and will solve problems, you just never hear Conservatives say that.
Conservatives also say that the "free market" will solve our problems, which is another lie, because the "free market" isn't going to stop wildfires from spreading, solve murders and crimes, fix the infrastructure, feed the poor, defend the country, keep the air and water clean, provide affordable health care, and fix a whole slew of other problems.
When Conservatives stop saying the Government is causing all our problems and that the free market will fix our problems, and lying about many other things, people will stop hating them.
One more reason I "hate" Conservatives is when I was arguing against invading Iraq, I was told that if I didn't support that I was siding with the terrorists. Those Conservatives were basically calling me a traitor to my country, and for that, I don't think I will ever forgive them.
Are you a crazy stalker that's been stalking Bob for several years? No? Then you would not get banned like the guy in the second post.Signa said:
Pro tip:
If you see the words hypocrite and drone-strikes in the same post in a MovieBob thread it is most likely this guy, how has been banned several times, and even forced the Escapist to press charges.
Just to troll all of the people claiming that we should stick to the middle.
Some people want evolution to be thought in schools and some want intelligent design thought. Is it really acceptable to stay in the middle and allow both?
And yes you have extremist on both sides. I have seen some very extreme atheist talk about this subject
Some people want evolution to be thought in schools and some want intelligent design thought. Is it really acceptable to stay in the middle and allow both?
And yes you have extremist on both sides. I have seen some very extreme atheist talk about this subject
I guess I haven't been following Bob long enough then. I've been getting to the point of hating Bob anyway. When I started watching him, he had some insightful things to say about the things I liked, but now it's getting awful they way he presents himself, and the things he overlooks, or outright dismisses because it doesn't fit with his world view. Come to think of it, I think he's become the very kind of person that Matt and Trey make fun of in South Park all the time.Tombsite said:
This is actually the kind of thinking that South Park tends to lambast, to be honest. The obstinate refusal that the other side might actually have a point is the thing they tend to mock the most frequently.AkaDad said:
Case in point: none of that is necessarily a lie. There's most certainly a grain of truth to it, though how much is up for debate. From what I understand, the attitude toward the government you're railing about is less about "the government doesn't solve anything!" and more "the government doesn't solve anything correctly!". The view is that governments are gigantic moneysinks mired in bureaucracy and inefficiency and can't get anything meaningful done in a reasonable time frame, and that private enterprise is a much better alternative for getting such.
Which leads to the second point you brought up. The logic behind the free market is that if someone wants something, they will be willing to pay for it, and if they are willing to pay for it, someone will show up to collect that pay. Therefore, as long as people exist in a society, there will be people willing to pay for road upkeep, police services, etc, and that someone will establish organizations to handle that, if only to make money off it. And they'd then have to do a good job or someone else would come by with a better service at the same or lower price and people would start using that.
Now, the real-world practicality of this is very much in question. From anecdotal evidence and some applied logic, it doesn't really seem likely to work out that well in practice, as the realities of life make many such services a necessity and therefore the laws of free economics stop applying properly (ex. the American healthcare system). But that's far from conclusive proof and I neither know nor care enough to really dive in deep to examine it in greater detail.
It's mostly irrelevant to my point anyway, which is mostly that dismissing the other side just because they disagree is asinine and (should be) a crime against humanity. Your beliefs can only become more complete and well-rounded by being challenged, and one should take every opportunity to question what you believe to be true. It's the only way to grow as a person.
Did not say you have to like him. Just don't go make it look like people will get banned from simply critiquing the guySigna said:
. Also the guy has never been shy about him trying for maximum controversy with most of his stuff. If it annoys you, I would advice you to stop watching him for your own sanity sake. He will never change.
You really should have kept reading. Then you wouldn't have revealed your self this blatantly as being closed minded and set in your view. That entire analogy has become a giant psych-test for people to read into it what they want to read and then reveal who they are.bringer of illumination said:
Even if Conservatives said that Government can't solve anything correctly it would still be a lie, because we have evidence that it can, they've seen it and yet they still say they can't solve problems correctly.Agayek said:
What you're saying is that I need to have an open mind about viewpoints even if there is all kinds of evidence proving that a particular viewpoint is incorrect. That makes no sense. If a Conservative said that the earth is flat, should I keep an open mind about that?
When Conservatives say Liberals hate rich people, does that mean rich Liberals hate themselves or are Conservatives just lying? It's stuff like that, that pisses us off and I don't know how you expect me to keep an open mind.
And here I am thinking that collectively we could never ever have enough people who are willing to play the role of devil's advocate in good faith, even when it is profoundly uncomfortable to do so. No, I'm afraid South Park is as relevant as ever to the dangers of overdosing on the kool-aid, and losing all touch of prospective on the issues that rob us of all sense of reason.
No, my point is that you need to accept that you might be the one in the wrong, and when presented with alternatives, you should examine what you believe, the arguments for and against, the new perspective, the arguments for and against, and how it all meshes with the facts, then modify your beliefs accordingly.AkaDad said:
And yes, you should absolutely keep an open mind about everything. If, like in your example, someone said the earth is flat, you should acknowledge it as a point of view, compare it to the evidence and facts, then make a judgment on the validity of it. Things that, on the surface, seem utterly ludicrous, unintuitive, and completely wrong can, in fact, be the truth (for example, the duck-billed platypus really is a mammal, despite the fact that it's the only one that lays eggs), and you should never dismiss anything out of hand. Look at it, and if it does not match the facts, then you can dismiss it.
Anything less is limiting yourself and your growth rather severely.
Edit: You're getting stuck on the Conservatives vs Liberals part of your argument, which is blinding you to the larger sentiment. This isn't about politics (though it very, very much needs to apply there). It's about belief systems and worldviews in general.
All right children! Let's do this!
First of all, I like Bob. I work in a movie theater and take most of my recommendations from his reviews. His Big Picture shows are mostly great. But this was a bad article. Professionalism and side taking are like toothpaste and orange juice in my opinion. They don't mix.
One side is never completely right. One side is never completely wrong. The message SP sends (in my own opinion) is to take the points of each "side" and pick and choose like you're at a buffet. For example:
IN MY OPINION:
The "Conservatives" Have Right:
The Government is actually bloated, ineffectual, and destroying america's financial credibility.
Welfare should be regulated. I, John Q. Taxpayer, should not have to pay to support Shaniqua D. Babymomma having three more children and a bag of weed. However, I DO want to support Jane S. Outtaluck who just lost their job. I don't owe anyone, but Welfare has a purpose.
The Constitution is actually sacred. You may have my gun from my cold dead fingers.
The Police are for solving crimes and punishing lawbreakers. THEY ARE NOT CRIME PREVENTERS. We live in a free society. I am free to break the law, but not to escape the punishments. There is a difference that many liberals do not understand.
Illegal immigrants do not have (legal rights, they still have human rights) rights. They do not "Deserve" citizenship, medical care or protection. They chose the incorrect way to enter a country.
The "Liberals" Have Right
Keep your religion to yourself. I do not need your religious creation MYTH stated as fact in my/my children's science classes.
Your religion can have laws over your own life, however this is a Democracy, not a Theocracy, and because "God says no to gay marriage and abortion" does not mean that it should be law.
People should not be judged on race, gender, sexuality, religion... etc. However, this also applies to (oh god say it isn't so!) white heterosexual males.
Again, these are entirely my opinion, but there is a point to this. South Park does have a viewpoint that Bob accurately described as "everyone is equally wrong" but his approach in the article is wrong. Liberals are not the crying babe, they are the parent who believes that the baby is entitled to cry loudly in a public space. The BOTH deserved to be slapped. (the parent not the kid) Additionally, to reiterate what some others have said, rein in the hypocrisy. Bob has excellent points on most occasions, but when you let your political ideology bleed through into your writings, you discredit yourself somewhat.
TL;DR
The baby wasn't the liberal, the parent who wasn't doing anything was. So the slappings were equally justified.
No "side" has it all right, but if you take the points of each side that have merit, you can actually "stay in the middle" and make progress. And on the hypocritical note, Once you have ripped Family Guy a new as$hole for comparing the republicans to nazis, then you have my permission to mock South Park.
First of all, I like Bob. I work in a movie theater and take most of my recommendations from his reviews. His Big Picture shows are mostly great. But this was a bad article. Professionalism and side taking are like toothpaste and orange juice in my opinion. They don't mix.
One side is never completely right. One side is never completely wrong. The message SP sends (in my own opinion) is to take the points of each "side" and pick and choose like you're at a buffet. For example:
IN MY OPINION:
The "Conservatives" Have Right:
The Government is actually bloated, ineffectual, and destroying america's financial credibility.
Welfare should be regulated. I, John Q. Taxpayer, should not have to pay to support Shaniqua D. Babymomma having three more children and a bag of weed. However, I DO want to support Jane S. Outtaluck who just lost their job. I don't owe anyone, but Welfare has a purpose.
The Constitution is actually sacred. You may have my gun from my cold dead fingers.
The Police are for solving crimes and punishing lawbreakers. THEY ARE NOT CRIME PREVENTERS. We live in a free society. I am free to break the law, but not to escape the punishments. There is a difference that many liberals do not understand.
Illegal immigrants do not have (legal rights, they still have human rights) rights. They do not "Deserve" citizenship, medical care or protection. They chose the incorrect way to enter a country.
The "Liberals" Have Right
Keep your religion to yourself. I do not need your religious creation MYTH stated as fact in my/my children's science classes.
Your religion can have laws over your own life, however this is a Democracy, not a Theocracy, and because "God says no to gay marriage and abortion" does not mean that it should be law.
People should not be judged on race, gender, sexuality, religion... etc. However, this also applies to (oh god say it isn't so!) white heterosexual males.
Again, these are entirely my opinion, but there is a point to this. South Park does have a viewpoint that Bob accurately described as "everyone is equally wrong" but his approach in the article is wrong. Liberals are not the crying babe, they are the parent who believes that the baby is entitled to cry loudly in a public space. The BOTH deserved to be slapped. (the parent not the kid) Additionally, to reiterate what some others have said, rein in the hypocrisy. Bob has excellent points on most occasions, but when you let your political ideology bleed through into your writings, you discredit yourself somewhat.
TL;DR
The baby wasn't the liberal, the parent who wasn't doing anything was. So the slappings were equally justified.
No "side" has it all right, but if you take the points of each side that have merit, you can actually "stay in the middle" and make progress. And on the hypocritical note, Once you have ripped Family Guy a new as$hole for comparing the republicans to nazis, then you have my permission to mock South Park.
You've spent 30 years following politics, and the greatest argument you can come up with is: "Massachusetts is run better than the South" and a bunch of arguments based largely on ludicrous stereotypes and sound bites?AkaDad said:
You need a new hobby.
Bob is right and wrong in this article, he brings up some good points and some are complete shit, but that's true for most things on the internet. I would like to note that an awful lot of people are taking personal swipes at Bob, and that's pretty shitty of you, because even if you disagree with Bob's political views, civility isn't right wing or left wing.
It was stupid of Bob to bring up privilege for two reasons, first off, because I don't feel like he has a strong argument about that point, but also because the term privilege has become toxic on the internet, and I feel that it undermined his point.
I do however think he is right about South Park. I'm not at all a fan of South Park, not because it offends me and my admittedly far leftness, but rather because it is so smug in its whole "Look at how cynical we are about everything" routine. I can't think of anything more grating than people who act like they're somehow special just because they point out the blatant hypocrisy of our political system, all the while grossly misrepresenting what is actually going on and what is at stake. Not to mention the fact that South Park is incredibly juvenile in its jokes, relying heavily on vulgarity or just simple "toilet humor" (vomiting, poop jokes, and things of that nature) and attempting to pass it off as clever of insightful.
Sometimes it is funny (Scott Tenorman Must Die is one such episode), but for me, its very rare that I actually laugh at a joke from South Park, same goes for Family guy, though The Simpsons is still passably amusing.
It was stupid of Bob to bring up privilege for two reasons, first off, because I don't feel like he has a strong argument about that point, but also because the term privilege has become toxic on the internet, and I feel that it undermined his point.
I do however think he is right about South Park. I'm not at all a fan of South Park, not because it offends me and my admittedly far leftness, but rather because it is so smug in its whole "Look at how cynical we are about everything" routine. I can't think of anything more grating than people who act like they're somehow special just because they point out the blatant hypocrisy of our political system, all the while grossly misrepresenting what is actually going on and what is at stake. Not to mention the fact that South Park is incredibly juvenile in its jokes, relying heavily on vulgarity or just simple "toilet humor" (vomiting, poop jokes, and things of that nature) and attempting to pass it off as clever of insightful.
Sometimes it is funny (Scott Tenorman Must Die is one such episode), but for me, its very rare that I actually laugh at a joke from South Park, same goes for Family guy, though The Simpsons is still passably amusing.
Attacking both sides equally... So South Park's ideology that nothing is sacred and anything can be satirized is analogous to physically attacking a baby for crying.
No it fucking ain't.
My apologies Bob, thats a freakin cheap shot, and while I disagree with you on most of what you say even I found that to be a low blow. When you use tropes and film school technobabble in your movie reviews I find it funny, I disagree with you, but it's funny, but please don't start resorting to blatant character assignations because then you lose the entertainment factor.
No it fucking ain't.
My apologies Bob, thats a freakin cheap shot, and while I disagree with you on most of what you say even I found that to be a low blow. When you use tropes and film school technobabble in your movie reviews I find it funny, I disagree with you, but it's funny, but please don't start resorting to blatant character assignations because then you lose the entertainment factor.
I would agree that South Park is a shadow of it's former glory, (I don't event think it's that funny anymore) but I think their philosophy would be better described as "Attack everything" rather than "Attack everybody".
This, to me, seems to be the source of South Park's downfall; it's become increasingly inclined to simply attack the people supporting an argument instead of the argument itself.
The directed celebrity attacks used to function more as metaphors, now they're just attacks
This, to me, seems to be the source of South Park's downfall; it's become increasingly inclined to simply attack the people supporting an argument instead of the argument itself.
The directed celebrity attacks used to function more as metaphors, now they're just attacks