QuantumZebra
Member
No that was all his "PC bros"
IE he was the one straight arrow that believed in PC, and the rest were acting PC to get laid
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
South Park is not subversive
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
No that was all his "PC bros"
IE he was the one straight arrow that believed in PC, and the rest were acting PC to get laid
Audioboxer
Member
It definitely lampoons the "male feminist ally" trope (PC Principals goons), wherein someone isn't actually as pure intentioned as what they preach. South Park has done that since day 1, gone after and satirised hypocrites. They're low hanging fruit, but it can be funny. Hence why religion and Christianity/Catholicism got/get hit hard. There are plenty of bad religious people out there who do not practice what they preach, especially around sex. I more so mean homophobia there, but yes, child molestation gets satirised too due to how prevalent it's been in religious circles. The supposed purest of people society is to look up to as Holy people, molesting children and covering it up...
Unfortunately, there can indeed be "bad allies" as the internet likes to flaunt and point out when someone who acts as a spokesperson for a cause ends up with their laundry aired out and they appear hypocritical.
That's why I think it's best for someone to acknowledge they're human and might make some mistakes, but ultimately you have to be primarily concerned with your own behaviour, actions and beliefs before you get over the top preachy at others. Challenging others is a necessity to try and move the world forward, but if you have some skeletons yet act incredibly smug, hostile and aggressive about being perfect/impure, don't let those skeletons get out! If you aren't Mr/Mrs perfect and fall down to a transgression, depending on how severe, your apology and attempt at bettering yourself might just be accepted. Those who are the most preachy about being perfect very rarely ever have an apology accepted as they fall under the weight of the castle of perfection and purity their fans/friends/colleagues expected of them.
This is why words and personas on the internet can sometimes be quite empty, especially if you do not really know someone uttering them. I am honestly not inferring anyone in this topic, but in general, I think some anger about the PC Principal storyline arc will have come from people rattled at having themselves satirised. As I implied earlier, many who are confident in their beliefs and know they aren't hypocrites or living up to some castle of perfection can take jokes on the chin/self-deprecate much more freely without feeling they are being tested 24/7. They do not get as internally defensive when a 20-minute cartoon of all things satirises or jokes about the world. If said people find the humour lame, shitty or the show overall crap, it's easy to turn off and move on. Others will continually go on long-winded expositions about how this cartoon is morally corrupting the world, like those quotes I posted on the last page from Conservatives/Religious thinkers.
Overall, SP is not a moral compass for the world, and yes, it contains a lot of rude/crude and on the edge humour. If it was put in a time capsule for aliens, it would be in a box marked human comedy/satire. Not educational/history.
Mahadev
Member
hydrophilic attack
Member
I got sick of their libertarian agenda way before pc principal.
Here are some of the earlier stuff I have a problem with:
There was the entire story-line about Mr. Garrisson performing a sex change just because he preferred being a heterosexual woman over being a closeted gay man, rather than because of any gender dysphoria.
There was the Michael Jackson episode where they took the absolute piss out of the entire concept of racial discrimination in the police force. People are going to respond and say that the episode criticized the police. But go back and watch it again. Particularly look at Kyle's monologue at the end, and the police's monologue 15 minutes in. The entire episode is a strawman about liberal arguments about racial discrimination in the police with how absurdly they show the police going out of their way to target black people
There was the episode where they went to Washington and showed that economic policy was decided by putting a headless chicken on a lottery wheel and letting it decide policy by stumbling around to the Benny Hill theme played on a kazoo. This is a very libertarian criticism where they question whether public policy makers know anything about their job at all. And then in the next scene they lampoon central banking in a way that would have made Ron Paul proud.
There was the ManBearPig episode where warnings about climate change were equated with baseless fearmongering. Oh and liberals who drive environmentally friendly vehicles poison the air with their smugness
There was the episode were they went out of their way to defend the rights of boy scout organizations to discriminate against homosexual people. By the end they very clearly come out in favour of the libertarian argument that the rights of the boy scouts organization to choose what sort of people can be leaders is more important than the rights of Big Gay Al not to be discriminated against.
Oh and there's the Sexual Harassment Panda episode that has as its main thesis that sexual harassment is an overblown problem that basically only exists for cynical lawyers to make money off of poor innocent men
But I guess South Park fans in their safe spaces will keep thinking it's all because we got TEH TRIGGERED!!!! by PC principal
Skellig Gra
Member
Those are all fair points but some of those examples you are listing are ancient. The backlash is much more recent than those episodes. Sexual Harrassment Panda was in the 90s!
In my mind South Park started as a very subversive show and maintained that for a long time, we're talking like ten seasons worth of time. However the thing is South Park has been around for such a significant period of time that its subversive elements have been so much so often for so long that it just comes off as what the show is to many folks. Its become The Simpsons in a lot of ways for a lot of people. It tackling touchy or sensitive subjects to lambast one, both or all sides of an issue is kind of a given at this point.
For South Park to really be subversive at this point it would probably have to do something truly different like drop humor entirely or pick a side and ride it hard or just something that isn't expected and common place for the show. Its not so much subverting other subjects but itself though I do think this is beside the point of this article and thread as that's more about its handling of subjects like race relations.
For South Park to really be subversive at this point it would probably have to do something truly different like drop humor entirely or pick a side and ride it hard or just something that isn't expected and common place for the show. Its not so much subverting other subjects but itself though I do think this is beside the point of this article and thread as that's more about its handling of subjects like race relations.
prag16
Banned
Those topics were fun around here that season, when people pointed out that "PC Principal is basically gaf" and weren't exactly wrong...
Not to nitpick, but Manbearpig ended up being real. So... y'know... subversion
Edit: Oops, that was from one of the Imaginationland episodes, so it doesn't work.
Skellig Gra
Member
Acknowledging your privileges I guess? I've always hated it personally.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
That's... huh. I'd describe myself as a woolly liberal leftist and I thought he was the best new addition to the series in ages.
Audioboxer
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYP7BW1XYeo
Spoilers! But yeah
Hey Leslie... your species took PC and twisted it for evil purposes... FATALITY!
The hero we deserve.
What a triggered little fanbase this show has gotten recently. We're at the point where Gaffers are comparing random people on the internet saying "I didn't like this and I think other shows are doing its shtick better than SP" to fucking Tipper Gore. Get a grip, people. The world's not gonna end because someone had the audacity to critique your talking poop cartoon.
prag16
Banned
The irony...
Get a grip, people. The world's not gonna end because a talking poop cartoon had the audacity to poke some fun at your side of an issue.
March of the Crabs
Member
Pretty much how I feel.
IamDodongo
Member
Real talk: the new episode was pretty bad
prag16
Banned
Yeah... I laughed a few times, but on the whole it was a weak start to the new season. (Having nothing to do with the ridiculous argument on how woke or not woke any of the content was.)
The_blonde_and_blue
Member
Lol, this bit seems particularly ironic.
Definitely a low-point for the series. Some good gags and a decent premise, but Cartman's story was just awful.
31GhostsIV
Banned
As a Brit I have to ask, what does 'woke' mean?
And I thought the point of South Park was to take the piss out of pretty much anything? Why is this suddenly a big deal 21 years later?
I haven't seen the new one yet as it hasn't aired here. Wouldn't surprise me if it's not very good is it's been hit and miss for a while.
And I thought the point of South Park was to take the piss out of pretty much anything? Why is this suddenly a big deal 21 years later?
I haven't seen the new one yet as it hasn't aired here. Wouldn't surprise me if it's not very good is it's been hit and miss for a while.
I think it means something like: being attuned to liberal identity politics.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Well there are also some highly selective readings of what those episodes were about.
For example:
The scouts one was mainly about how a person's appearance and sexual identity are entirely irrelevant to their moral character.
The parents lobby the Scouts to get rid of Al because of their homophobic reaction to the kids picking up some of his mannerisms. They initially welcome his replacement, a macho drill-sergeant type man's-man type, who as it turns out is an actual pedophile.
Although the kid's successfully reveal this, and get their parents to pressure the state to legally enforce the Scouts to reverse their stance on "No Gays allowed", Al being the morally superior character in the story declines to return.
His speech is about them having the right to exclude him, on the basis of "their club, their rules" is not validating their discrimination its about the moral vacancy of having their ability to choose taken away from them. It echoes the earlier scene where the Scout elders give Al the chance to stay if he simply denies his gayness in their "investigation". Which of course he refuses to do also.
The moral point in total being that homophobia has led to a little tragedy in which everyone loses. Al loses his love for an organization he's spent years in, the kids lose a beloved scoutmaster, and the scouting organization loses the sort of leader who they need to build their membership, not to mention that they look like douchebags to everyone (including the idiot parents) for discriminating in the first place.
Its hardly a subtle critique.
That's what the discussion in this thread has been about.
It isn't taking the piss out of pretty much anything. That's how they defend themselves when attacked for picking innocuous targets like... smug car owners or... Phil Collins or whatever. But SP has a history of pulling punches on targets that actually deserve it, because they like to be contrarian or whatever.
for 2 reasons. 1. it's not, and 2. the misinterpertation of the messages and humor is beyond frustrating. It's so plainly obvious.
It's also been such a dramatic rise since they took pot shots with PC principal and painted Hilary as unlikable. Some people can't handle their side being criticized. Hell on gaf we had a rogue mod mass banning anybody who wasn't in support of Hilary.
HellforLeather
Member
The left has gotten particularly bad with their litmus tests in recent years. Im not an avid watcher of South Park but it seems to me that they enjoy taking the piss out of everything and everyone. The article seems to forget that these guys main consideration is to make a show that is funny, I dont think they've ever claimed to be some kind of moral authority bestowing kernels of wisdom through a talking cartoon piece of shit.
Are they? What do you think their social values are? Genuinely curious.
hydrophilic attack
Member
dropping an alt-right meme that casually
cool bro
nice edit, guess you realized you just outed yourself
cromofo
Member
Is it?
News to me. Seen it used quite alot on other forums.
Got me, I'm a Nazi.
Case in point.
Lol, reeeee is not exclusive to alt right circles.
PixelatedBookake
Junior Member
Maybe he meant to say WRYYYYYYYYYYYYY?
It's annoying and childish either way.
cromofo
Member
Well, that's the point
Brock Reiher
Banned
Is it just that more people are finally realizing that most libertarians are super annoying?
TheRedSnifit
Member
Today on GAF: Angry noises are an alt-right meme.
Probably this, yeah
hydrophilic attack
Member
this pretty much sums it up yeah
cromofo
Member
Equally annoying as liberals who see everything as black/white.
Audioboxer
Member
So now that the atmosphere has turned thick in here, let's return to an offensive punchline PC Principal clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_x7yTqod0I
If you laugh at that or even crack a smile, it might infer something about you. Beware of watching. You might have serious problems with your morality afterwards.
And no, to be serious for a moment, I don't use the r word in normal conversation. To laugh at a clip it's being used in a comedy/satirical way is not an endorsement of the behaviour of the people you're watching/laughing at. That is what drives "libertarians" around the bend. Seeing as we're approaching it being "those libertarians that like South Park". I picked the above clip on purpose to be clear about that.
That line of arguing really has it's roots in the argument of people playing violent video games will make you violent. Listening to offensive jokes/comedy or music will somehow make you offensive against your will. If you hear Randy, Cartman or PC Principal make an offensive joke your worldviews will morph to be theirs. You'll then behave like them! Nah, plenty of moral, decent and well-rounded people can decipher real malice and intent from an animated cartoon and act accordingly.
Sometimes when you enter comedian topics on the board these days you do a 180 and leave. That Chappelle one recently was a bit mental. Again, not because people criticise someone's favourite comedian and say their work sucks. It's the moral judgements about anyone who says "I laughed/enjoyed it". Oh no, that must mean you are endorsing hate/discrimination/violence or whatever a comedian jokes about. No, not at all. I really struggle to understand why many on the modern left have such a problem with humour. Again, not having to like all humour, but the inability to accept decent, normal, well-rounded people can enjoy something like South Park. When and if you make heavy-handed remarks like South Park is alt-right, viewers endorse the alt-right, yeah, people will respond negatively. Imagine that. The alt-right is a white supremacist movement. There are no decent, normal and well-rounded people that are part of a white supremacist movement. Are you wanting to say, white supremacists, like/watch SP? That's different, and I'm sure they do (we know they do). As I said earlier I'm sure they watch and do a lot of things you do too.
Or maybe the OP
is right and we are just fake woke white people (sorry any person of colour who watches South Park) deluding ourselves about rising above Cartman, Randy and PC Principal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_x7yTqod0I
If you laugh at that or even crack a smile, it might infer something about you. Beware of watching. You might have serious problems with your morality afterwards.
And no, to be serious for a moment, I don't use the r word in normal conversation. To laugh at a clip it's being used in a comedy/satirical way is not an endorsement of the behaviour of the people you're watching/laughing at. That is what drives "libertarians" around the bend. Seeing as we're approaching it being "those libertarians that like South Park". I picked the above clip on purpose to be clear about that.
That line of arguing really has it's roots in the argument of people playing violent video games will make you violent. Listening to offensive jokes/comedy or music will somehow make you offensive against your will. If you hear Randy, Cartman or PC Principal make an offensive joke your worldviews will morph to be theirs. You'll then behave like them! Nah, plenty of moral, decent and well-rounded people can decipher real malice and intent from an animated cartoon and act accordingly.
Sometimes when you enter comedian topics on the board these days you do a 180 and leave. That Chappelle one recently was a bit mental. Again, not because people criticise someone's favourite comedian and say their work sucks. It's the moral judgements about anyone who says "I laughed/enjoyed it". Oh no, that must mean you are endorsing hate/discrimination/violence or whatever a comedian jokes about. No, not at all. I really struggle to understand why many on the modern left have such a problem with humour. Again, not having to like all humour, but the inability to accept decent, normal, well-rounded people can enjoy something like South Park. When and if you make heavy-handed remarks like South Park is alt-right, viewers endorse the alt-right, yeah, people will respond negatively. Imagine that. The alt-right is a white supremacist movement. There are no decent, normal and well-rounded people that are part of a white supremacist movement. Are you wanting to say, white supremacists, like/watch SP? That's different, and I'm sure they do (we know they do). As I said earlier I'm sure they watch and do a lot of things you do too.
Or maybe the OP
is right and we are just fake woke white people (sorry any person of colour who watches South Park) deluding ourselves about rising above Cartman, Randy and PC Principal.
It's us or them, black or white, alt-right or progressive, bigoted or inclusive, wrong or right, offensive or enlightened. There is no possible in-between or acceptable alternate viewpoint for these people. I'm not at all saying both sides are the same in these situations or that a middle ground is acceptable, I'm saying that any difference in opinion what-so-ever is treated as the opposition, or "the other side." In some situations leveling the both sides critique against someone equating both sides is completely appropriate, like when we watched Trump squirm his way through the Charlottesville comments. In a situation like that of course him saying both sides are the same is horrifying. But there's a huge difference between saying that Nazis and counter-protesters are the same and saying that candidates like Bush and Kerry were the same on the basis of them both being disinteresting, uninspiring politicians(not to mention saying this for the sole purpose of comedy). The problem with liberals who are outraged by a show like South Park is that they equate all differing opinions, regardless of how extreme or tame, and morally righteous or bankrupt those opinions may be. To them, being libertarian is somehow the same as being alt-right simply because it's not being liberal/progressive. So they sling their new buzzwords around at targets that don't deserve it and end up watering down their meaning to the point where it's no longer as effective as it could have been if it was reserved for the right targets.
Comments like this:
... add nothing new to the conversation, are vapid excuses for any real critical thought or opinion-formation, alienate those who are on the same side as you, dilute what the term 'alt-right' should actually be reserved for, and ultimately ends up being more harmful than the show you're currently criticizing.
I'm 30 now. When I was younger(say, 10 years ago) being a young liberal wasn't so militant-minded and ready to rage at a perceived difference of opinion, even if that difference of opinion is not the true enemy. I suppose it's a product of the suffocating and toxic political atmosphere of the last 8 years so I understand today's progressive youth are a product of that, but it's this tunnel vision that kills their chances of accepting or talking to allies that are only 98% the way there and will ultimately kill their chances of reclaiming the future.
Audioboxer
Member
Yeah, I get some of what you're saying. What bothers me more isn't the us vs them (I just shrug that off, I'm on the left, deal with it, you can't make me right because you think I'm not on your side), it's the hypocrisy I know is going on in some individual instances. People with personas who'll pretend on the surface they are angelic, pure and never in their life have ever laughed at a single offensive joke. All while in the privacy of their own home, or private lives with friends, will be watching comedy, shows, offensive clips and all that other "taboo" content some list of left-wing blogs/websites disapprove of. Pretty much like PC Principal and his group members to start with, it's a pretence. Which is why I think PC Principal satirising that attitude of constant moral superiority and perfection against ANY political incorrectness while being preachy, rubbed some wrong because it hit home hard. Humans like to laugh at things, as I said earlier in the thread it's natures anti-depressant. Sometimes people laugh at so-called punch-down jokes, and it's not with malice or intent to harm/upset. The jokes if delivered reasonably don't target individuals, but the overall plight anyone is in, in those situations. Life is fucking terrible for most average people. Tough jobs, breakups, loss, money issues and then add health problems, both physical and mental, and then class/race divides. The world is tough place to survive in, and sometimes humour even if it's self-deprecating or satirises real serious problems gets people through said problems. "Take life less seriously in small doses" is not an insult to people, even those struggling in life sometimes have to do it or they'd go insane/lose the will to live or combust under the stress they have. Humour is often an equal opportunities offender, and it always has been. South Park is one of the most renowned for hitting up everything, even if the balance isn't pinpoint 50:50 both sides.
With the vast realms of comedy and jokes about everything, comedy will often offend someone. The offence isn't the problem here. It's quite natural for people to check out and say, this is offensive to me, I don't want to watch it or I don't like it. That is okay. You lack nuance if you simply bludgeon everyone who takes offence to things in the world as outrage culture, or whatever the current younger right like to say about the left. It's when people take that offence and extrapolate it into grand meanings about the modern day scene, moral panics, questions of other peoples sanity because they might not be as offended and so on. When the comedy is coming from a cartoon like South Park, that's just going a bit over the top. Extrapolating South Park to being a cause of white supremacy is how you get yourself satirised. Not because you do not like South Park, but that is one hell of a claim. Just like violent video games will cause violence. If you want to argue alt-right YouTubers and their brands of comedy, mockery, abuse and so on are fuelling the alt-right, fine, most people will listen. Not everyone can just decide they are a bonified comedian and have "it's just jokes bro" fly without consequence. I don't believe that, and I don't think many others do (although YouTube doesn't do much about it). That's another misconception that because you laugh at South Park/offensive humour, you somehow can't decipher the difference between "real comedy" and assholes with a web camera/computer keyboard causing people targetted suffering.
To go back to hypocrisy and what people watch when not online, yes, overall most of comedy is ultimately private viewing. You can be a hypocrite if you want because it's between you and your consent with the DVDs you buy, or comedy show you attend or videos you watch and laugh at in private. No one is going to know, except you and maybe your close friends. Internet friends won't know, you can remain squeaky clean online! Everyone will look up to you for being such a prime example of how to live the perfect moral life.... While us imperfect dumbasses who just vote in the correct way, support all the correct causes and treat everyone equally don't quite get there because of offensive comedy/jokes/shows. We need to learn how to do better and stop being fake woke allies! Our bad, we shall move onto only approved comedy shows from the latest blogopshere approval list as not to get branded alt-right.
That idea of "comedy consent" is another thing largely missing in the examples above with YouTube and the internet. People get targeted when they do not want to be the butt of offensive jokes, or content creators just think it's "just a joke bro" to drop racial slurs in a gaming live stream. If something offensive in a reasonable setting makes you laugh, fine, that's been socially and culturally acceptable for hundreds of years. There isn't some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if we can just sterilise the comedy world, and that will fix all the worlds ills! What matters most in life is how you behave around other people. Such as how you treat people, what respect you offer and then all the usual trimmings around your social and political views. Some of the left seem to think because nasty trolls exist on the internet, humour itself, especially any offensive humour, has to have a direct correlation to someone being a troll/alt-righter. It's becoming a bit too much of a "I get all my world views off the internet" moral panic. I guess South Park is a great case study because many of us fans have watched it since we were young and before the internet existed as it does. Most of us have probably turned out like I said above, decent, moral and well-rounded people. South Park in of itself isn't what corrupts people to be morally bankrupt, it's the people themselves. People need to stop pretending like the second decent, moral and well-rounded people hear an offensive joke they crash off the road and become bigots and hate-mongers. I can assure you most adults, and even some youngsters, can laugh at offensive sitcoms and not go out their front doors and attack people (I don't just mean physically here, I mean behaving like Cartman or Randy too).
Pretty much all of this.