South Park As A Gated Community

[Shamanic Rhythm]

That was some seriously lame analysis of South Park's ethos. Here's the real fallacy: assuming that show has an obvious and discernible message when almost every show ends with a parody of shows that have a message.

Having seen the 'Vote or Die' episode many times (I revisit it roughly every time there's an election in Australia...), there is no message saying 'It's all going to be okay'. It's nothing more than a straight-up mockery of the entire system of two-party politics, and your argument that the creators are exhibiting straight white male privilege is nauseating to read.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

You don't need to be full on moderate to like South Park, just not blind partisan crazy. As long as you aren't a blind partisan, you can point out the stupidity of the nutjobs on your own side. Its only the real sheep that adopt the view of, "My side is always right, and their side is always wrong". That is what leads people like Bob to be against attacking both sides equally. Of course you don't support attacking both sides if you think one side is a bunch of backwards morons and the other (the one "you" belong to of course) is full of rational, intellectual people who are better than everone else.

 

[an874]

it always came across to me that south park was saying to calm down not telling people to not care, Also just because south park says that both sides have issues doesn?t mean it still can?t pick a side.

Yeah but they never do, they come across as too cowardly to ever try. They must have preferences when it comes to an issue (Stone and Parker are human after all), but they still stick to the everyone is stupid but me line to pander and tow the line with their presumably equally cynical audience.

 

[Towels]

Guys, why so serious? What is with all the over analyzing? Its just an irreverent comedy about cheaply drawn weeble people, folks.
Taking South Park's ambiguous "Politics" seriously is like unironically saying Dethklok is greatest band ever made.

I am the hero this town needs.
I am -- THE COON.

 

[nima55]

It's as if Nihilism and cynisism are useless personal policies

 

[AkaDad]

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?

You need a new hobby.

They campaign and get elected on those sound bites. Their philosophy is anti-government and pro-free market. How is repeating what Conservatives say ludicrous? That governing philosophy was the reason they opposed Social Security, Medicare, child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental protections(even though a river caught on fire because it was so polluted), banking regulations, unemployment insurance, welfare, and civil rights laws. Basically, the things which made America a better place.

As I type this, Conservative Republicans have shut down our government because they are so ideologically opposed to the new health care law. That's going cost us billions, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and stop important government functions.

Politics isn't a hobby, it's a civic duty to be involved, especially since it has real-life consequences. I have plenty of hobbies btw, but thanks for being so condescending.

I was really hoping I wouldn't see you participating any more after you compared how awesome liberal politics are to conservative ones by using a Massachusetts (where you happen to live) vs. "The South" statement. I'm not sure if you get out much... but try visiting Houston some time. I moved here from Baltimore because after living there for 22 years I got to see what "liberal politics" does to densely populated areas (read Baltimore, DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc.), it was a dangerous, violent place, you have an undue amount of money taken from you for no visible return, and in the end had my job sector shattered because the Democrat governor saw a juicy target and imposed a massive computer services sector tax and all the businesses moved.

Now, I live in the most multicultural city I've ever seen, with much more pleasant people, and we happen to be the largest city in US history with an openly gay (and female) mayor*. Oh, and we have available jobs that provide a decent standard of living, AND our state has a balanced budget. We also have the largest and one of the best medical centers in the world*.

See, my anecdote is fun too, and there were some facts in there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/politics/13houston.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center

Also, just my thoughts on the government shutdown. People being out of work sucks, sure, and even right in my community it's being felt, as I live right near NASA JSC, but y'know what? The "government" has been shut down for a week, and we've somehow not descended in anarchy. So maybe, just maybe, some of those people not at work right now, aren't exactly a necessity to the function of our country. The whole shutdown in general though is just a bunch of grandstanding by two sides that are both WAY out of touch.

I've honestly gotten bored of seeing the punches back and forth about it, but the last news update I saw on the real life effects of the shutdown was the NPS shutting down 1,100 square miles OF OCEAN along with Biscayne Bay from people fishing, ruining a bunch of small businesses that do fishing charter trips, AND it's costing more to enforce the "shutdown" than it did to just leave it open, because, y'know, it's the fucking ocean.

1. You're comparing a state to city. Try comparing the state of Texas to the state of Massachusetts. Houston may have a gay mayor, but gay marriage is banned in Texas, whereas Massachusetts was the first state to allow gay marriage. It's also kind of ironic as well talking about Houston, since Houston is one of the most Liberal sections of Texas.

2. You completely ignored all the Liberal policies that made America a better place, which Conservatives fought against.

3, You ignored how the Conservative philosophy is based on a lie.

4. Because the Government is shut down, all our food isn't being inspected. Republicans better pray that tainted food doesn't hit the market and people get sick or die.

I'll add a couple more things. Conservatives rightfully rant about our debt, but the problem is they try to blame it on all on Liberal spending, when in fact the majority of our debt was passed by Conservative presidents. Our largest expenditure is on Defense, but try getting them to cut the Pentagon or defense budget. Conservatives also talk about intrusive Government while passing laws that intrude into our lives.

This whole argument that both sides are bad isn't really true and all it takes is some research to see it.

 

[hentropy]

I think the problems with Parker and Stone is that it seems they go out of their way to try and take shots at others. The NSA episode was delightfully moderate- on one hand you don't want to ignore the NSA's actions entirely but on the other hand people willfully broadcast most of this info and hand it over to private companies to mine, and then complain that the government wants to do it too.

But I think it's just the sort of false comparisons and such. The episode is a good example, go most of the episode framing the argument in an interesting way, but then they just go completely out of their way and sort of derail the episode to take potshots at Alec Baldwin, as if someone will be mad at them if they don't insult one liberal per episode. It just sort of seemed out of place and unnecessary. It was similar with Team America: World Police. Much of the movie was focused on trying to knock celebrities down a peg, but is that really one the same level as the other message, that America shouldn't insert itself in every problem in the world? Do so many people take celebrity political views seriously that they have to all be graphically murdered and ridiculed? No, they're just taking the more "liberal" position for the real issue in the movie, so they're "obligated" to go out of their way and attack liberal actors, as if to appease conservative pundits who were obsessed with Michael Moore at the time.

There's a difference between being a "passionate moderate" and simply attacking both sides because you see it as some obligation. True conviction means saying what you believe and that's it, not having to find some actor or easy target to ridicule over irrelevant issues and events.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

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?

You need a new hobby.

They campaign and get elected on those sound bites. Their philosophy is anti-government and pro-free market. How is repeating what Conservatives say ludicrous? That governing philosophy was the reason they opposed Social Security, Medicare, child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental protections(even though a river caught on fire because it was so polluted), banking regulations, unemployment insurance, welfare, and civil rights laws. Basically, the things which made America a better place.

As I type this, Conservative Republicans have shut down our government because they are so ideologically opposed to the new health care law. That's going cost us billions, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and stop important government functions.

Politics isn't a hobby, it's a civic duty to be involved, especially since it has real-life consequences. I have plenty of hobbies btw, but thanks for being so condescending.

I was really hoping I wouldn't see you participating any more after you compared how awesome liberal politics are to conservative ones by using a Massachusetts (where you happen to live) vs. "The South" statement. I'm not sure if you get out much... but try visiting Houston some time. I moved here from Baltimore because after living there for 22 years I got to see what "liberal politics" does to densely populated areas (read Baltimore, DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc.), it was a dangerous, violent place, you have an undue amount of money taken from you for no visible return, and in the end had my job sector shattered because the Democrat governor saw a juicy target and imposed a massive computer services sector tax and all the businesses moved.

Now, I live in the most multicultural city I've ever seen, with much more pleasant people, and we happen to be the largest city in US history with an openly gay (and female) mayor*. Oh, and we have available jobs that provide a decent standard of living, AND our state has a balanced budget. We also have the largest and one of the best medical centers in the world*.

See, my anecdote is fun too, and there were some facts in there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/politics/13houston.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center

Also, just my thoughts on the government shutdown. People being out of work sucks, sure, and even right in my community it's being felt, as I live right near NASA JSC, but y'know what? The "government" has been shut down for a week, and we've somehow not descended in anarchy. So maybe, just maybe, some of those people not at work right now, aren't exactly a necessity to the function of our country. The whole shutdown in general though is just a bunch of grandstanding by two sides that are both WAY out of touch.

I've honestly gotten bored of seeing the punches back and forth about it, but the last news update I saw on the real life effects of the shutdown was the NPS shutting down 1,100 square miles OF OCEAN along with Biscayne Bay from people fishing, ruining a bunch of small businesses that do fishing charter trips, AND it's costing more to enforce the "shutdown" than it did to just leave it open, because, y'know, it's the fucking ocean.

1. You're comparing a state to city. Try comparing the state of Texas to the state of Massachusetts. Houston may have a gay mayor, but gay marriage is banned in Texas, whereas Massachusetts was the first state to allow gay marriage. It's also kind of ironic as well talking about Houston, since Houston is one of the most Liberal sections of Texas.

2. You completely ignored all the Liberal policies that made America a better place, which Conservatives fought against.

3, You ignored how the Conservative philosophy is based on a lie.

4. Because the Government is shut down, all our food isn't being inspected. Republicans better pray that tainted food doesn't hit the market and people get sick or die.

I'll add a couple more things. Conservatives rightfully rant about our debt, but the problem is they try to blame it on all on Liberal spending, when in fact the majority of our debt was passed by Conservative presidents. Our largest expenditure is on Defense, but try getting them to cut the Pentagon or defense budget. Conservatives also talk about intrusive Government while passing laws that intrude into our lives.

This whole argument that both sides are bad isn't really true and all it takes is some research to see it.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, you really need to do more research.

Social security: Approximately 110 Republicans in the house at the time: 85 voted for it, 15 voted against it (rest didn't vote or not present).

You failed to reconcile the fact that he pointed out that the STATE of Texas has a balanced budget, not just Houston.

Massachusetts has had Conservative Governors as well (remember Rick Scott?).

Iraq War: Over half the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq War, so I'd hardly say that they lockstep opposed it.

The EPA was signed into law by an Executive Order from Richard Nixon, a Republican.

Welfare: Even most Democrats admit that Welfare was a disaster until the welfare reforms of the late 90's, which were pushed by Republicans.

"Our largest expenditure is on Defense, but try getting them to cut the Pentagon or defense budget."
For starters, our largest expenditure isn't on defense, we spend more on both Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. 2nd, Democrats were in office during essentially all of our biggest Military expenditures, including WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. A Repub was in the house during Iraq/Afghanistan, but like I already mentioned, a majority of Democrats voted for both of those wars.

"Conservatives rightfully rant about our debt, but the problem is they try to blame it on all on Liberal spending, when in fact the majority of our debt was passed by Conservative presidents."
It's Congress that has "power of the purse", so debt falls more to them than anyone else. Since libs usually use the Reagan era onwards to point out this fact, feel free to check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png
As you can see, debt increases much faster when we have a Democratic controlled Congress.

"Conservatives also talk about intrusive Government while passing laws that intrude into our lives."
Agree 100%

"This whole argument that both sides are bad isn't really true and all it takes is some research to see it."
I agree on the research part.

The funny thing about this is that I don't even consider myself Conservative, but it drives me nuts when people are so brainwashed with the "My side good!!! Other side bad!!!!" ideology that they'll believe anything there told. It's like people who will continue to insist that vaccines cause autism, no matter how much research you put in front of them.

Oh, and the Democrats shut down the Government 7 times during the Reagan era.

 

[keserak]

I fall in the South Park category of politics, in which I feel both sides of the issues are so far batshit insane (and downright stupid) that I want no part in it and trust none of them. I love the humor of South Park, because it really hits the nose on what "equality" really means. Humor has no politics.

That's not true. Parker and Stone are middle-of-the-road libertarians, not left-wing or right-wing.

That's not true. Libertarianism in the mid-20th and 21st-century U.S. is a thoroughly rightwing movement with a few blips here and there. Outside of the U.S., libertarianism is not only a left-wing movement, but is actually associated with anarchism. (Indeed, the first use of the term libertarian was by an anarchist while discussing anarchism.) Rightwingers took the term libertarian in order to create a counter to liberalism while distancing themselves from the usual trappings of rightwing politics. It wasn't entirely successful.

So, no, Stone and Parker are rightwingers on many issues and have moral values on others. That actually lends itself to Bob's point: the ability to say X doesn't matter, where X is a life-or-death issue for millions but doesn't mean shit to you, is basically a rightwing position. That's what causes South Park's unevenness in "handedness" and tone, and why episodes can vary from hilarious to banal.

Humor does have politics -- just check the Daily Show versus the rightwing's failed attempts at creating a counter. Humor must have truth behind it; without some basis in reality, there is no irony. No irony means no humor. If you're self-deluded or selfishly lying to yourself about an issue, your jokes on that issue will fall flat because they only make sense in your little world.

Think about it this way: why did rightwingers even think they needed a "counter" to the Daily Show in the first place? Because, as Colbert said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

South Park is like the Simpsons, Family Guy, or Futurama - it's so utterly middle-of-the-road that it hardly offends anyone

Um, no, wrong. South Park still offends people -- they just don't bother watching it once it becomes irritating. Futurama and the Simpsons have _never_ hit the level of outrage that South Park has, for good or ill, and they don't have a history of dud satire episodes, either. (Then again, they don't try for straight political satire nearly as often, either.) Family Guy's controversies are usually issues of taste.

Spoiler

Also, Family Guy's "pox on both your houses" shtick usually concerns well-off white "liberals" (scare quotes intentional) who forget liberalism when convenient versus conservatives. Brian is a highly, highly, highly flawed individual and represents the show's "liberals" for just that reason. Hell, one of Lois' most great one-liners described a catastrophe that was destroying the town as not being a problem -- yet -- because it was currently only annihilating the poor neighborhood. That's not slapping down the do-gooders like South Park might. Family Guy isn't controversial for politics, it's controversial when it's just plain mean or spiteful.

 

[keserak]

As to the general political discussion herein: do note that the Democrats in Congress are mostly rightwingers. The U.S. is run by two hard-right parties: one considered crazy by the rest of the world and one considered sane by the rest of the world -- but definitely hard-right. Using the Democrats as an example of liberalism, without pointing out specific groups of Democrats, is simply wrong.

 

[Nurb]

Oh geez, please stop the "check your privelage" stuff. Please.

 

[AkaDad]

The political tangent in here is off-topic but I'm throwing in my two cents:

They campaign and get elected on those sound bites. Their philosophy is anti-government and pro-free market. How is repeating what Conservatives say ludicrous? That governing philosophy was the reason they opposed Social Security, Medicare, child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental protections(even though a river caught on fire because it was so polluted), banking regulations, unemployment insurance, welfare, and civil rights laws. Basically, the things which made America a better place.

Ahahahaha! Oh gods, it sounds like you read this straight off of a cue card handed to you by the Democrats. Do people still actually believe this? That one party in the country is full of virtuous saints and the other is full of demons who hate everyone who isn't an old white male? I'm so amused that people like this not only exist, but then they actually want to pretend they know anything about politics.

As I type this, Conservative Republicans have shut down our government

Wrong. The Republican-led House passed no less than three different spending plans, each of which was progressively more lenient and attempted to negotiate with the Democrats in the Senate (they went from "defund Obamacare" to "delay it" to "cut corporate and Congressial exemptions on it"). And then, after the shutdown happened, they attempted to pass several small-scale bills to fund smaller parts of the government to reduce the damage.

The Senate shot every single House proposal down. The Senate, to date, has passed only one bill and is stubbornly insisting that their bill be passed. On top of this, the Democrat-led executive branch is attempting to enforce this "shutdown" by intentionally making life as inconvenient for people as possible. That's why we have incidents like the WWII memorial (which is an open park with no fences or guards) being barricaded and stationed with guards to prevent 90-year-veterans from seeing their own monument, and being threatened with arrest if they even show up. Or any of the other ones provided above. Or the fact that they're closing down ocean coastline under the same stupid pretenses. They're spending more money to enforce this facade of a "shutdown" than they would be normally spending.

So....who's really being the obstructionist here?

I guess it's a bad thing "reading off the Democrats cue cards", but it's perfectly fine when you repeat Republican talking points about the shutdown.

The Democrats passed the ACA when they had the majority. Obama campaigned on it in the last election against the guy who campaigned on repealing it and Romney lost by 5 million votes. The Democrats also gained seats in both chambers. If Americans wanted it repealed they would have given the Republicans full control. The law was passed and funded, if the Republicans want to repeal the law they're going to need to become the majority again, not hold the budget hostage and extort concessions from the Democrats on their signature legislation. If the Dems give concessions on this, what's going stop the Republicans from not raising the debt ceiling until Dems pay off their extortion demands? That's not how you run the government. You can try and blame this on Democrats, but this shutdown is wholly on the Republicans.

If life is inconvenient for people, then the Republicans shouldn't have shut down the government.

There's no point arguing anymore if you're going to be disingenuous.

 

[AkaDad]

I wasn't trying to be condescending, you really need to do more research.

Social security: Approximately 110 Republicans in the house at the time: 85 voted for it, 15 voted against it (rest didn't vote or not present).

You failed to reconcile the fact that he pointed out that the STATE of Texas has a balanced budget, not just Houston.

Massachusetts has had Conservative Governors as well (remember Rick Scott?).

Iraq War: Over half the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq War, so I'd hardly say that they lockstep opposed it.

The EPA was signed into law by an Executive Order from Richard Nixon, a Republican.

Welfare: Even most Democrats admit that Welfare was a disaster until the welfare reforms of the late 90's, which were pushed by Republicans.

"Our largest expenditure is on Defense, but try getting them to cut the Pentagon or defense budget."
For starters, our largest expenditure isn't on defense, we spend more on both Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. 2nd, Democrats were in office during essentially all of our biggest Military expenditures, including WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. A Repub was in the house during Iraq/Afghanistan, but like I already mentioned, a majority of Democrats voted for both of those wars.

"Conservatives rightfully rant about our debt, but the problem is they try to blame it on all on Liberal spending, when in fact the majority of our debt was passed by Conservative presidents."
It's Congress that has "power of the purse", so debt falls more to them than anyone else. Since libs usually use the Reagan era onwards to point out this fact, feel free to check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png
As you can see, debt increases much faster when we have a Democratic controlled Congress.

"Conservatives also talk about intrusive Government while passing laws that intrude into our lives."
Agree 100%

"This whole argument that both sides are bad isn't really true and all it takes is some research to see it."
I agree on the research part.

The funny thing about this is that I don't even consider myself Conservative, but it drives me nuts when people are so brainwashed with the "My side good!!! Other side bad!!!!" ideology that they'll believe anything there told. It's like people who will continue to insist that vaccines cause autism, no matter how much research you put in front of them.

Oh, and the Democrats shut down the Government 7 times during the Reagan era.

First, I'd like to say thanks for being civil in your responses.

I don't have time right now to go over everything you said, but I'd like to quickly make a couple corrections. A majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war. In context of the debt, defense is our biggest expenditure since SS and Medicare are funded by the payroll tax which doesn't contribute to the debt.

While Nixon did establish the EPA, Republican presidential candidates, in the last election, are on record saying they want to abolish the EPA, which is nuts, frankly.

Lastly, my original comment was Conservative vs. Liberal governing. Doesn't it make sense that anti-government politicians who want to eliminate government and privatize its functions are going to do a shittier job as opposed to the politicians who don't hate government and want it to succeed? Liberal government isn't perfect by any stretch, but compared to conservative governments, it's a lot better.

 

[Dunesen]

I mean, did you even finish watching the NSA episode? It pointed out the hypocrisy of people demanding less government surveillance but still plaster their personal information all over the net

I haven't seen the episode, so maybe they phrased the view differently than you just did now, but I can tell you the fallacy of it: people choosing to share their personal information is different than the government deciding it can read your emails, listen in on your phone calls, etc. without seeking your consent (or even letting you know about it).

I have to say, I've enjoyed South Park since it began but there are times I get tired of the 'Everyone's wrong in their own way' stance because, akin to Bob's argument, it smacks of false equivalency. The idea that not having an opinion or taking an 'a pox on both your houses' view of conflicting sides in an argument is somehow wiser or more mature than believing in something is just infantile. I'm not saying there aren't some cases where it's acceptable to ignore an issue (as opinionated as I am I keep the entire Israel/Palestine issue at arm's length for a variety of reasons), and in many cases having a greyer, nuanced opinion is more thoughtful and admirable than a reflexive liberal or conservative one.

But South Park, intentionally or not, has helped cultivate an entire movement of "Both sides are assholes, so I'm just going to stay away from all of it, as if I'm above it." in most/all things. There's nothing unique or insightful about saying that Democrats can be just as partisan as Republicans, and all-too-often trying to say that both parties are equally extremist or equally stubborn simply shows you aren't paying attention.

It's the fans of South Park that bother me. I don't expect the show to change its approach, and I can't blame Parker and Stone for having their viewpoint, even if I disagree it at times. But people who have apparently taken the 'Both sides are wrong' message to heart and praise the show for saying what they want to hear? That's just ridiculous. It's similar to how I, an unabashed liberal, am bothered by other liberals/Democrats who praise The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for preaching their views because they make fun of Republicans. Whatever Stewart and Colbert's actual politics may be, they're not dyed-in-the-wool activists who want to see the Republican party taken down (anybody remember the Rally to Restore Sanity and it's 'both sides need to tone down the rhetoric' message?). They're just comedians using current events as material, and because the Republican party so often touts its craziest, more reactionary members, that's where they get their material.

Just because a comedian makes fun of people you don't like doesn't mean they're on your side. It probably just means they know how to play to the audience.

 

[sageoftruth]

Once again, Bob shows what a massive f**king hypocrite he is by calling out South Park, yet he gives shows like the Simpsons & Family Guy a free pass when they use their "privilege" to insult people, simply because he agrees more with the far-left leanings of Groening and McFarlane.

Bob, you are just a worthless hypocrite. And you're still wrong for supporting drone warfare.

Maybe chill out and just say you disagree, instead of throwing out profanity and character attacks? You've been on the site long enough to know you hate Bob, so just don't watch/read his stuff.

Well, there's always train-wreck fascination. Perhaps he was trying to save us from what he saw as Moviebob Propaganda.

 

[Duncan Belfast]

I'm pretty sure neither the baby nor the angry man actually represent anything. It's just an anecdote set up to demonstrate a point.

The angry man and the baby are both annoying to the other passengers. But while a baby crying isn't something anyone can really do anything about, because crying is just a thing babies do, the angry man is a full-grown adult who should really know better than to have an argument with his girlfriend on speakerphone on a crowded bus.

The overall point is that not everything warrants being attacked equally.

"How dare he disrupt everyone with an argument with his girlfriend." Is a reasonable complaint. You don't have to argue where everyone can hear you.

"How dare she have a baby and bring it on a bus." Is not a reasonable complaint. Maybe her car is in the shop. Maybe she can't afford a sitter, or to take her child to daycare. Maybe she doesn't even have a car. Maybe there's no father. We just don't know.