Support NeoGAF

[Audioboxer]

moaning about Monty Python if it was topical.

If you want to bring up Monty Python, Cleese himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U

Cleese makes it clear it's okay to speak out about things right at the start, but goes on to focus on specific failings of some to productively handle their emotions

I'm offended every day. For example, the British newspapers every day offend me with their laziness, their nastiness, and their inaccuracy. But I'm not going to expect someone to stop that happening, I should just simply speak out about it, you know. And sometimes when people are offended they want somebody to just come and say, right, ”Stop that!" to whoever is offending them. And, of course, as a former chairman of the BBC once said, there are some people one would wish to offend, and I think there is truth in that too.

So the idea that you have to be protected from any kind of uncomfortable emotion is one I absolutely do not subscribe to. And a fellow that I helped write two, umm books about psychology and psychiatry, he was a renowned psychiatrist in London called Robert Skinner said something interesting to me, he said, "if people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other peoples' behaviour". And when you're around super sensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next.

And that's why I've been warned recently, don't go to most university campuses because the political correctness has been taken from being a good idea, which is let's not be mean, in particular, to people who are not able to look after themselves very well, that's a good idea, to the point where any kind of criticism or any individual or group can be labeled um, cruel.

The whole point about humour, the whole point about comedy, and believe you me I've thought about this, is that all comedy is critical. Even if you make a very inclusive joke, like ”How would you make God laugh? <answer> Tell Him your plans." Now, that's about the human condition, it's not excluding anyone. It's saying we all have all these plans which probably won't come and isn't it funny how we still believe they're going to happen. So that's a very inclusive joke, still critical.

All humour is critical.

If you start to say, ”Oooh, we mustn't, we mustn't criticise or offend them", then humour's gone. With humour goes a sense of proportion and then as far as I'm concerned, you're living in 1984.

Not a one shoe fits all statement by any means, but definitely relevant to some people who as I've spoken about at length constantly go out of their way to try and moralise what everyone around them should laugh at/enjoy/consume because they themselves are unhappy with said content existing and being enjoyed. Often trying to infer serious moral consequence will exist if the content at hand is consumed, all while time and time again it's proven the majority of people can watch, play and read offensive content/material with it having zero effect on their social behaviour/political beliefs. Without regurgitating it all again, a good moral base and teachings/discipline from a young age set most minds up to understand the concept of intent, and understand the difference between right and wrong forms of expression.

Given that South Park doesn't strictly focus on satirising one thing, or a few things, and it'll go full circle and have a go at everything, that is why some critics of it are deadly silent when it's not their beliefs in the firing line, then all of a sudden fully interested the following week when they are. It's one thing to be critical of the show, call it shit, hate it and never watch it, it's another because you feel this way to go around suggesting other people should question why they do not fall in line or make grandiose claims about real anti-social behaviour when the science routinely states otherwise.

Edit: Bonus Cleese political satire video from 1987 that could be relevant lol ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCkxlqFd90

 

[Darth Ghandi]

I'm still quite puzzled by the fact that people think there's an institutional left that has the structural power to shame and ostracize.
And even the hierarchy + dedicated bureaucracy + time to "eat itself" and do some good old fashioned Stalinist cleansing within its own ranks.

What are those structures people allude to?
I'm pretty positive we're just talking about individuals with twitter accounts, and maybe a freelance job as a journalist writing for a website.

Cmon, everyone knows that it is secretly tumblr feminazis that rule the world.

 

[gfxtwin]

I'm still quite puzzled by the fact that people think there's an institutional left that has the structural power to shame and ostracize.
And even the hierarchy + dedicated bureaucracy + time to "eat itself" and do some good old fashioned Stalinist cleansing within its own ranks.

What are those structures people allude to?
I'm pretty positive we're just talking about individuals with twitter accounts, and maybe a freelance job as a journalist writing for a website.

I'll take a stab at this I guess.

It seems like the thinking behind that mentality is that there's a distinction between social power and political power. Political power, in this case often granted unjustly to socially backwards white men, can dramatically effect the livelihood of people from different backgrounds, especially economically. Sometimes also laws that can easily get someone annoyingly profiled every week or even unjustly murdered if not careful around law enforcement. Laws that prevent access to healthcare and prevent being hired by high-paying employers due to institutionalized biases.

And then there's social power, which many feel is granted, broadly speaking, to a privileged class of progressives who come from well-to-do families that haven't experienced much class struggle or social dysfunction and are judging those who were not raised in that environment too harshly.

So the rural white guy in a trailer park who was raised by Wal Mart employees and truckers feels he is at a disadvantage compared to the female college classmate who's family largely consisted of psychologists and community planners who had more means to help pay for her college tuition. She thinks the rural white dude has more advantages because he is a masculine white dude. The trailer park guy in her class is baffled that she's preaching about having a difficult life due to being female because she most likely always lived in a clean two story house and had smart and kind parents who didn't beat and/or emotionally abuse her. So when this guy uses the wrong gender pronoun in class out of ignorance and is shamed by the female student, he feels pressure because he is forced to exert much more mental effort to unlearn what he's known his entire life to socially catch up to where she comfortably is.

This guy might have a lot of anxiety because he is afraid, and not unreasonably, that he will say something in the wrong tone or say something perceived as racist or sexist that he didn't intend - something that will harm any economic upward mobility. Because he knows that once he gets the cushy office job, if he isn't mentally and emotionally on at all times and he slips and a microaggression or subtle form of perceived harassment comes out, that, despite his good intentions, he will be fired and it's back to the duplexes or trailer park with him.

The thing that the rural white guy has trouble realizing is that although his quality of life is possibly in jeopardy due to being labeled as a bigot despite trying to be more progressive and then being thrown in the social garbage can, the problems he faces aren't as overtly damaging and potentially life-threatening as the problems someone has who is marginalized by someone like Trump having as much political power as he does. He doesn't get that just because he could NEVER get away with saying those Trumpian things in his office without being permanently fucked off, those checks often doesn't apply to those working in the field of politics due to institutionalized legal benefits they reap, as Trump clearly demonstrated, and that abuse of political power harms marginalized people much more than backlash from his social growing pains harms him. BUT, it still IS a threat on his quality of life and he feels that nobody on the podcasts he listens to, CNN, in his university, in the workplace, etc acknowledges that, and that's most likely where some of the anxiety, bitterness and feeling of being slighted by the part of society that he desperately wants to be a part of comes from. The part of society that seems to have the nicest houses, most comfortable jobs, most social support, etc.

Basically I would say a lot of the divisiveness comes down to not keeping things in realistic perspective or historical perspective regarding how corruption from the highest positions of power effects all citizens as well as refusing to understand people on individual levels before judging them as a certain person based on perceived tells instead of knowing where they truly are on a moral continuum. People and morality itself is often much more complicated than most are willing to admit or realize.



Cliffnotes: the above post solves all the worlds problems, etc

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Basically I would say a lot of the divisiveness comes down to not keeping things in realistic perspective or historical perspective regarding how corruption from the highest positions of power effects all citizens as well as refusing to understand people on individual levels before judging them as a certain person based on perceived tells instead of knowing where they truly are on a moral continuum. People and morality itself is often much more complicated than most are willing to admit or realize.



Cliffnotes: the above post solves all the worlds problems, etc

How do we speak with people like these?
And how many chances do we give someone like this?
Does he have any responsibility regarding his knowledge about social issues?

Also we have minorities in similar positions and they don't turn out like this dude, why is that you reckon?

 

[Kinyou]

Regarding Laci or me not wanting bigoted friends?

Laci.

 

[gfxtwin]

How do we speak with people like these?
And how many chances do we give someone like this?
Does he have any responsibility regarding his knowledge about social issues?

Also we have minorities in similar positions and they don't turn out like this dude, why is that you reckon?

There are minorities who are miraculously unaffected by toxic environments or the nihilistic situation of poverty, yep. And of course the same could probably be said about some rural jug players in Appalachia. I think both circumstances involve an amount of struggle one has to overcome, but when you make it you make it. There are definitely similarities between impoverished urban and rural areas that can shape the emotions and attitudes of the people who live there, but on one hand someone is angry at injustices that are rooted in real history and government policies, and the other type of person is likely to be ignorant of those things in a way that make moving past their situation kinda hopeless IMO. But it's often more complicated. What do you do with someone who used to be an ignorant asshole in a shittown environment and then moves to the city and attends a university and tries adopting a social justice ethos but has difficulty changing/adapting/unlearning the garbage they used to believe in? To them, what we feel is common human decency is like walking through a social mindfield blindfolded. One wrong step and BOOM, bye bye hopes and dreams. How many chances that person should get is difficult to say IMO, but I really do think humor is key to getting through most awkward situations. But even that can be kinda difficult because of how few people want to laugh at themselves.

I also don't think social ostracization is a bad thing, and I practice it myself. It can be really, really hard to look at things through a lens of empathy and see the good in people. But let's say you're walking to class and you see one of those maniac bigoted preachers on campus. Even though I'm viscerally disgusted and anxious around them, part of me is really interested in knowing what makes someone like that tick. That's just something that interests me. It's possible it might also be a luxury to feel that way, because there aren't many things someone could say to me that has the power of a racial or sexist slur. But when you really take the time to learn where someone is coming from on an individual level...that, hey you know that crazy guy who preaches bigotry on campus? Did you know he was molested all throughout his youth by a priest and that fuels his homophobia? Or, that redneck guy who said a racey microaggression? Turns out he grew up in a white supremacist household and he's trying to branch out. That person who comes off as a pervert? They experienced sexual abuse growing up. It makes you realize how much of a large role external factors play in shaping who someone is and you start focusing less of hating assholes who bother you and more on developing a better understanding of the complexity of human behavior, which potentially ends up making you more human in the process. This is something I attempt when possible and I think it's just one of many valid reactions to have towards toxic people.


Anyway, these are just my opinions on this shit lol, I'm not formally educated in sociology/anthropology/psychology/etc so take them with a grain of salt, lol.

 

[Haly]

Cliffnotes: the above post solves all the worlds problems, etc

The first long form post in this thread that makes any amount of sense.

I guess to contribute, there is definitely a mistaking of social power for political power, especially from the anti-PC, anti-SJW camp. People who rail on about censorship and safe spaces don't realize that all of this is just background noise to what's going on in this country, and aren't a real, long term "threat" because it has no political bite (and thus no lasting consequences). But, because of their distaste for this element of the "left", they give up on the left as a whole, and this is dangerous because this is precisely the kind of thing that keeps the right in power: Distractions from the problems at hand with regards to racism, healthcare, wage stagnation, etc.

 

[Chindogg]

How do we speak with people like these?
And how many chances do we give someone like this?
Does he have any responsibility regarding his knowledge about social issues?

Also we have minorities in similar positions and they don't turn out like this dude, why is that you reckon?

These are the million dollar questions. As a dumb white guy from the midwest who's tried to improve over the years and feels sometimes that he's on eggshells over these very things, I'll try to articulate what you can do to bridge the gap.

The best way to speak to "people" like these is to remember that they're people, not just some evil "other" that you need to score internet points on by mocking and shaming as soon as something dumb comes out of their mouth. Just tap them on the shoulder in private and go "hey what you said was not exactly cool, could you reconsider what you said in the future?"

Now if they continuously step over that line after you've tried being cordial it's best that you just call them out once and move on. Shaming folks doesn't erase their bad ideologies, it only silences them for the time being while pissing them off to the point to quietly saying 'fuck off' in the voting booth.

On to responsibility. They only know what they know. Never expect anyone especially from the midwest to know anything about intersectional feminism or trans rights. You'd barely be able to scratch gay rights thanks to gay folks showing up in media the last 20 years. Should they be held responsible for being ignorant? Sure in an empirical concept, but in reality most people just care about their next paycheck and moving on with their own families. Most folks see LBGTQ issues as a "city" problem or a "coast" problem, since they're not too visible in their communities (despite being there in hiding.)

I realize everything I've said here will just be struck down as "fuck that guy for not hating these people" but honestly, shaming just doesn't work. Not when they are in positions of power. You've got to win a culture war of hearts and minds, and that means education and positive reinforcement. Bashing ignorant folks isn't going to help much. Believe me I've tried.

 

[gfxtwin]

The first long form post in this thread that makes any amount of sense.

I mean, I was pretty happy with my "what South Park defenders hear vs what South Park critics hear" post, but fair enough I suppose lol.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Laci.

So calling people on transphobia is shaming?

 

[Darth Ghandi]

There are minorities who are miraculously unaffected by toxic environments or the nihilistic situation of poverty, yep. And of course the same could probably be said about some rural jug players in Appalachia. I think both circumstances involve an amount of struggle one has to overcome, but when you make it you make it. There are definitely similarities between impoverished urban and rural areas that can shape the emotions and attitudes of the people who live there, but on one hand someone is angry at injustices that are rooted in real history and government policies, and the other type of person is likely to be ignorant of those things in a way that make moving past their situation kinda hopeless IMO. But it's often more complicated. What do you do with someone who used to be an ignorant asshole in a shittown environment and then moves to the city and attends a university and tries adopting a social justice ethos but has difficulty changing/adapting/unlearning the garbage they used to believe in? To them, what we feel is common human decency is like walking through a social mindfield blindfolded. One wrong step and BOOM, bye bye hopes and dreams. How many chances that person should get is difficult to say IMO, but I really do think humor is key to getting through most awkward situations. But even that can be kinda difficult because of how few people want to laugh at themselves.

I also don't think social ostracization is a bad thing, and I practice it myself. It can be really, really hard to look at things through a lens of empathy and see the good in people. But let's say you're walking to class and you see one of those maniac bigoted preachers on campus. Even though I'm viscerally disgusted and anxious around them, part of me is really interested in knowing what makes someone like that tick. That's just something that interests me. It's possible it might also be a luxury to feel that way, because there aren't many things someone could say to me that has the power of a racial or sexist slur. But when you really take the time to learn where someone is coming from on an individual level...that, hey you know that crazy guy who preaches bigotry on campus? Did you know he was molested all throughout his youth by a priest and that fuels his homophobia? Or, that redneck guy who said a racey microaggression? Turns out he grew up in a white supremacist household and he's trying to branch out. That person who comes off as a pervert? They experienced sexual abuse growing up. It makes you realize how much of a large role external factors play in shaping who someone is and you start focusing less of hating assholes who bother you and more on developing a better understanding of the complexity of human behavior, which potentially ends up making you more human in the process. This is something I attempt when possible and I think it's just one of many valid reactions to have towards toxic people.


Anyway, these are just my opinions on this shit lol, I'm not formally educated in sociology/anthropology/psychology/etc so take them with a grain of salt, lol.

not sure if you are trying to paint the rural white dude as facing the same kind of structural discrimination as a PoC or transgender and homosexual.

This scenario of the poor misunderstood white kid being fired for saying something wrong isn't one that I've seen to be widely spread.

These are the million dollar questions. As a dumb white guy from the midwest who's tried to improve over the years and feels sometimes that he's on eggshells over these very things, I'll try to articulate what you can do to bridge the gap.

The best way to speak to "people" like these is to remember that they're people, not just some evil "other" that you need to score internet points on by mocking and shaming as soon as something dumb comes out of their mouth. Just tap them on the shoulder in private and go "hey what you said was not exactly cool, could you reconsider what you said in the future?"

Now if they continuously step over that line after you've tried being cordial it's best that you just call them out once and move on. Shaming folks doesn't erase their bad ideologies, it only silences them for the time being while pissing them off to the point to quietly saying 'fuck off' in the voting booth.

On to responsibility. They only know what they know. Never expect anyone especially from the midwest to know anything about intersectional feminism or trans rights. You'd barely be able to scratch gay rights thanks to gay folks showing up in media the last 20 years. Should they be held responsible for being ignorant? Sure in an empirical concept, but in reality most people just care about their next paycheck and moving on with their own families. Most folks see LBGTQ issues as a "city" problem or a "coast" problem, since they're not too visible in their communities (despite being there in hiding.)

I realize everything I've said here will just be struck down as "fuck that guy for not hating these people" but honestly, shaming just doesn't work. Not when they are in positions of power. You've got to win a culture war of hearts and minds, and that means education and positive reinforcement. Bashing ignorant folks isn't going to help much. Believe me I've tried.

Am I understanding you and your fellow posters correct in that we should have more compassion for people that are white and bigoted.

I think if you open your mouth regarding sexism or racism or transphobia you should have an idea of what you are talking about.
I don't talk with engineers regarding stuff they know by talking out my ass.
Why should white people be allowed that?


Yeah, I have read this so many times that compassion is the right way.
But it is often only reserved for white people.
I wonder why that is.

 

[gfxtwin]

not sure if you are trying to paint the rural white dude as facing the same kind of structural discrimination as a PoC or transgender and homosexual.

Nope.

 

[Kinyou]

So calling people on transphobia is shaming?

Wouldn't you say she's been ostracized? I mean, it can be argued that it happened rightfully, while others see more value in discourse, especially when it's someone with a history of progressive viewpoints.

I'm not sure why you think the left is incapable of shaming or ostracizing people.

 

[Lo_Fi]

There's no need to make it about political views, this is a problem regardless of which side you're on. Suppression of things we disagree or find offensive as a solution to the problem is a theme that I personally have been noticing a lot more lately in discussions on the internet. If you don't agree and don't think it's happening, great for you, we're free to believe anything we want.

That's a helluva way to describe criticism.

If you think a gun in Call of Duty is overpowered and you post about it on the developer's forums, are you censoring them? After all, you'd be suppressing something that you disagree with.

I'm not sure why you think the left is incapable of shaming or ostracizing people.

Why is shaming or ostracizing bad? That's an honest question, I'm not trying to lead an answer.

 

[Lionel Richie]

That's a helluva way to describe criticism.

If you think a gun in Call of Duty is overpowered and you post about it on the developer's forums, are you censoring them? After all, you'd be suppressing something that you disagree with.

That's not a good example because censorship is usually about something that is perceived as morally harmful. If Call of Duty had for whatever reason some fat jokes and you thought that shouldn't be on the game or that the game shouldn't be released with it despite your intentions to buy the game or not, that's the idea of censorship. Not that you wish it wasn't there (criticism), but that you think it shouldn't be there (censorship).

 

[Dude Abides]

That's not a good example because censorship is usually about something that is perceived as morally harmful. If Call of Duty had for whatever reason some fat jokes and you thought that shouldn't be on the game or that the game shouldn't be released with it despite your intentions to buy the game or not, that's the idea of censorship. Not that you wish it wasn't there (criticism), but that you think it shouldn't be there (censorship).

This is a distinction without a difference.

 

[TI82]

Turd sandwich and giant douche has done so much damage to our political climate that while I enjoy that show that episode was really irresponsible of them.

 

[Lionel Richie]

This is a distinction without a difference.

It's absolutely not. If I gave your post a really rude answer, you could say I shouldn't have done that or that it adds nothing to the discussion or even tell me to go fuck myself (criticism), or you could say my post should be removed or that I should be banned (censorship). This is a somewhat shitty example, but there's a clear difference between not buying something because it's not for you for whatever reason and expecting it to be changed or not even released at all.

 

[Dude Abides]

It's absolutely not. If I gave your post a really rude answer, you could say I shouldn't have done that or that it adds nothing to the discussion or even tell me to go fuck myself (criticism), or you could say my post should be removed or that I should be banned (censorship). This is a somewhat shitty example, but there's a clear difference between not buying something because it's not for you for whatever reason and expecting it to be changed or not even released at all.

But we're not talking about posts on a message board. And, unlike here, where your posts can be edited or you can be banned by people with more authority (which is what censorship really means), that does not really exist. Anytime you say some aspect of media is shitty you are saying the media would have been better without that aspect, and it should not have been included. For example, if you say "that rape in GoT was trash" you are saying that it was bad and the creators should not have included it. You are not calling for HBO or the government to remove it from the show.

 

[Lo_Fi]

But we're not talking about posts on a message board. And, unlike here, where your posts can be edited or you can be banned by people with more authority (which is what censorship really means), that does not really exist. Anytime you say some aspect of media is shitty you are saying the media would have been better without that aspect, and it should not have been included. For example, if you say "that rape in GoT was trash" you are saying that it was bad and the creators should not have included it. You are not calling for HBO or the government to remove it from the show.

Yup. Any artist that puts their work out there will be criticized. This is criticism 101, it's not censorship.

And no one here needs to protect Matt and Trey - they've done this for 20 years, I think they can handle criticism, even if they don't agree with it.

That's not a good example because censorship is usually about something that is perceived as morally harmful. If Call of Duty had for whatever reason some fat jokes and you thought that shouldn't be on the game or that the game shouldn't be released with it despite your intentions to buy the game or not, that's the idea of censorship. Not that you wish it wasn't there (criticism), but that you think it shouldn't be there (censorship).

So, I don't understand. If I don't think fat Drake in Uncharted is a funny cheat code and I think it's offensive, am I censoring Naughty Dog if I tell them that? What if I don't tell them? Aren't I self-censoring at that point?

Your definition is ridiculous. It's called criticism, and it makes everything a lot easier once you realize artists don't have to react to every single piece of criticism they get.

 

[Crayon]

I have met several poorly adjusted young white men who worship South Park. I've felt this way about it for awhile now. South Park is a trashy low brow show and that's being kind.

 

[Lionel Richie]

But we're not talking about posts on a message board. And, unlike here, where your posts can be edited or you can be banned by people with more authority (which is what censorship really means), that does not really exist. Anytime you say some aspect of media is shitty you are saying the media would have been better without that aspect, and it should not have been included. For example, if you say "that rape in GoT was trash" you are saying that it was bad and the creators should not have included it. You are not calling for HBO or the government to remove it from the show.

But censorship isn't just what happens in like North Korea, the small things less harmful things could be perceived as that as well. The other guy I quoted in this page grasped that "shaming or ostracizing" isn't necessarily bad, and censorship isn't necessarily something clearly evil you can point out easily. I think it's shit because it has absolutely never worked in human history and in the case of TV shows the market is ultimately the one who will dictate if something is acceptable or not.

To stay on your example, if you think that the rape scene in GoT was shit or that it shouldn't be there because you didn't think like it, this is your wish, this is personal and this is criticism. However, if you were to imply that the scene shouldn't be there because it's morally unacceptable, or that HBO has a social responsibility, or that it could influence people in the wrong way, or that it normalizes a certain behavior or any fucking bullshit like that, that's pretty much censorship. In one you speak for yourself, in the other you speak in the name of society as a whole. In one you're stating your personal preference, in the other you expect the material to be shaped by your moral compass. In one you as a person don't like it, in the other you're speaking for everyone else.

If you don't think there's a difference between both stances, that's fine and I respect how you view the subject, but we will have to agree to disagree since there's nothing I can say that would convince you.

So, I don't understand. If I don't think fat Drake in Uncharted is a funny cheat code and I think it's offensive, am I censoring Naughty Dog if I tell them that? What if I don't tell them? Aren't I self-censoring at that point?

Your definition is ridiculous. It's called criticism, and it makes everything a lot easier once you realize artists don't have to react to every single piece of criticism they get.

I answered above what I think is the difference and the same thing I said applies to you as well. If you don't think there's a difference, sorry but we'll have to disagree because I see one clearly. There's a thin line between criticism and censorship to be sure and one thing that it's important to be understood is that no work is above criticism, but no criticism is above criticism as well lol. It's not because you have a right to criticize something that everyone must agree with you.

 

[Sunster]

i think at the very least it makes apathy towards voting and politics in general seem cool and funny.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Till Eulenspiegel being blamed for the image in the mirror. Fuck me this is stupid.

 

[Lo_Fi]

It's absolutely not. If I gave your post a really rude answer, you could say I shouldn't have done that or that it adds nothing to the discussion or even tell me to go fuck myself (criticism), or you could say my post should be removed or that I should be banned (censorship). This is a somewhat shitty example, but there's a clear difference between not buying something because it's not for you for whatever reason and expecting it to be changed or not even released at all.

If I don't buy something, it might not be as successful because it didn't sell as well. They might have to change it so it can sell better or might not even be able to release future things since they don't have money.

Am I participating in censorship by not buying things? If not, why is speaking with my wallet more valid than speaking with my voice?

Edit: I think what you're reacting to is the idea of someone who isn't in south park's audience criticizing the show. But the point I'm trying to make is that 1) It's up to Matt and Trey to decide if that's the case, and 2) it's up to Matt and Trey if they want to listen to people outside the audience of the show.

Edit2:

To stay on your example, if you think that the rape scene in GoT was shit or that it shouldn't be there because you didn't think like it, this is your wish, this is personal and this is criticism. However, if you were to imply that the scene shouldn't be there because it's morally unacceptable, or that HBO has a social responsibility, or that it could influence people in the wrong way, or that it normalizes a certain behavior or any fucking bullshit like that, that's pretty much censorship. In one you speak for yourself, in the other you speak in the name of society as a whole. In one you're stating your personal preference, in the other you expect the material to be shaped by your moral compass. In one you as a person don't like it, in the other you're speaking for everyone else.

Also, how can you read minds? How do you know someone is speaking for someone else when criticizing? "I'm offended" doesn't always mean "I'm offended for everyone else". The bolded are all things that can directly effect a person's life, so I'm not sure how it's less personal than your made-up standards for criticism. What if I'm worried about it normalizing behavior because I don't want to be effected by that normalized behavior? Or I don't want my child to be effected by that normalized behavior.

However, if you were to imply that the scene shouldn't be there because it's morally unacceptable

The definition of censorship sure is slippery. It's gone from governments banning things to...implying things on a message board.

 

[Lionel Richie]

If I don't buy something, it might not be as successful because it didn't sell as well. They might have to change it so it can sell better or might not even be able to release future things since they don't have money.

Am I participating in censorship by not buying things? If so, why is speaking with my wallet more valid than speaking with my voice?

No, I addressed this directly in the post you're quoting. I said the market is ultimately the one who will dictate if something is acceptable or not. If you don't buy something and you convince other like minded people to not buy it or advertiser to avoid being associated with it, it will cease to exist. That's how it works in a free place. Censorship is something being regulated not by how well it sells or the size of its audience, but by the idea that content is unacceptable regardless of those factors and that it needs to be changed or suppressed.

Edit: I think what you're reacting to is the idea of someone who isn't in south park's audience criticizing the show. But the point I'm trying to make is that 1) It's up to Matt and Trey to decide if that's the case, and 2) it's up to Matt and Trey if they want to listen to people outside the audience of the show.

I'm actually reacting to people saying South Park has a responsibility to do anything (it doesn't) or that it influences people into being bad people and it theoretically shouldn't do that (it doesn't). The line between criticism and asking for censorship in this case is murky, I tried my best to describe the difference I see in my previous post. I know it's not everyone that thinks like me in this matter, but I do see a subtle and yet important distinction.

Also, how can you read minds? How do you know someone is speaking for someone else when criticizing? "I'm offended" doesn't always mean "I'm offended for everyone else". The bolded are all things that can directly effect a person's life, so I'm not sure how it's less personal than your made-up standards for criticism. What if I'm worried about it normalizing behavior because I don't want to be effected by that normalized behavior? Or I don't want my child to be effected by that normalized behavior.

If you think that a work should be suppressed or changed beyond what the creators originally intended for it because it goes against your moral compass, that's asking for censorship regardless of anything. If you think something should be changed because it would be better if that was the case, that's criticism. The first one is imperative and the second one is subjective. If you think there's a difference in the tonality between them, that's fine. I won't be able to convince you.

The definition of censorship sure is slippery. It's gone from governments banning things to...implying things on a message board.

Because the government has power to do it and most people do not.

 

[Haly]

We're in invisible hand of the free market territory folks.

 

[Lionel Richie]

We're in invisible hand of the free market territory folks.

Thank God we are.

 

[Lo_Fi]

If you think that a work should be suppressed or changed beyond what the creators originally intended for it because it goes against your moral compass, that's asking for censorship regardless of anything.

You don't ask for censorship. Censorship is forcing a change. If you're asking, it's not censorship.

Also, what if you bring up a good point that they hadn't thought of before and they agree with it and opt to change their work? Is that censorship? Example: one of the leads on Overwatch has a daughter that asked him why she couldn't play as a girl, so he set out to have a more diverse cast in the game. So they didn't originally intend to have a diverse cast, but his daughter's comments changed that. Is she censoring him? After all, she's not on the dev team. She wasn't in the pitch meetings. They might've had a bunch of male heroes that were "censored" from the game. What makes his daughter different than anyone else giving their opinion on works of art?

No, I addressed this directly in the post you're quoting. I said the market is ultimately the one who will dictate if something is acceptable or not.

Why is the market saying "I think this is offensive" not the market? You're constructing two imaginary groups so that you can ignore the criticism you don't like because it's not "the market". This isn't some government we're talking about, this is someone writing an article and then people talking on a message board. Who in this thread is "the market", and who isn't "the market"? Why?

If you think that a work should be suppressed or changed beyond what the creators originally intended for it because it goes against your moral compass, that's asking for censorship regardless of anything. If you think something should be changed because it would be better if that was the case, that's criticism. The first one is imperative and the second one is subjective. If you think there's a difference in the tonality between them, that's fine. I won't be able to convince you.

And if I as the artist disagree with that first one, am I allowed to ignore it? If I can ignore it: not censorship. Just criticism I don't agree with.

Isn't that easier? Instead of arguing over the definition of censorship, you can just relax and let the artists respond to the criticism they feel is valid. Because if they're good artists, they'll be able to determine which criticism is relevant to them.

Because the government has power to do it and most people do not.

So then it's...hypothetical censorship, if those people had power? Why should anyone care about what joe schmoe on twitter would do if he had censorship powers? He doesn't, and he probably never will.

 

[Toxi]

The article seems to argue that exact belief is what causes trolling. That trolling is nihilists making fun of people that commit the sin of caring.

Trolling at its most basic is mocking how someone cares too much about something.

The problem is that many people today think caring about things like healthcare or equal rights is equivalent to caring about Yugioh. They simultaneously overvalue pop culture and undervalue the world and people around them. It's no wonder so much of this toxic mindset originates from the "geek" communities, because we are the people who value pop culture the most. We are the people who spend hours talking about it on the internet every day.

 

[MogCakes]

Many people proudly wear the nihilist label. I would love to send them to the moon together to live out the rest of their short lives with their beloved killer whale.

If they really don't care about anything, then they should be all for it.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Their style of humor was counter culture, and would've grown no matter what. Apathy and antagonism are symptoms of society and culture at large. I'm personally happy South Park is the show that kind of "spear-headed" this movement, rather than Boondock Saints and Mark Milllar comics.

 

[Toxi]

Their style of humor was counter culture, and would've grown no matter what. Apathy and antagonism are symptoms of society and culture at large. I'm personally happy South Park is the show that kind of "spear-headed" this movement, rather than Boondock Saints and Mark Milllar comics.

The thing is, the counter culture is the current culture.

So why is it still being treated as the counter-culture? In a country where Donald Trump is the President of the United States, why are we pretending that being an offensive shithead is brave or novel? That apathy and lack of curiosity are rebellion? That voting for a New York billionaire is anti-establishment?

That's the insanity here. We are in a society convinced it's against the man while it passively sucks the man's dick.

 

[Lionel Richie]

You don't ask for censorship. Censorship is forcing a change. If you're asking, it's not censorship.

Also, what if you bring up a good point that they hadn't thought of before and they agree with it and opt to change their work? Is that censorship? Example: one of the leads on Overwatch has a daughter that asked him why she couldn't play as a girl, so he set out to have a more diverse cast in the game. So they didn't originally intend to have a diverse cast, but his daughter's comments changed that. Is she censoring him? After all, she's not on the dev team. She wasn't in the pitch meetings. What makes her different than anyone else giving their opinion on works of art?

You ask if you don't have the power to censor it yourself, which 99,9% of the time you wontt have. And the question you brought up is clearly not censorship but I believe you already know that, stop playing coy.

Why is the market saying "I think this is offensive" not the market? You're constructing two imaginary groups so that you can ignore the criticism you don't like because it's not "the market". This isn't some government we're talking about, this is someone writing an article and then people talking on a message board. Who in this thread is "the market", and who isn't "the market"? Why?

Because South Park clearly doesn't have an audience problem, it has a defined market for it. Yes, absolutely nobody in this thread or the author of the article has any power to censor South Park, you keep comparing it to what the government could do and that is besides the point.

Listen, it's absolutely fine if you don't think "South Park has a social responsibility and therefore it should be changed" is asking for censorship. It's fine if you think it's just a criticism. I don't agree with you and I won't be able to convince you, like you won't be able to convince me.

And if I as the artist disagree with that first one, am I allowed to ignore it? If I can ignore it: not censorship. Just criticism I don't agree with.

Isn't that easier? Instead of arguing over the definition of censorship, you can just relax and let the artists respond to the criticism they feel is valid. Because if they're good artists, they'll be able to determine which criticism is relevant to them.

Again, you don't censor things directly because you probably don't have the power to do so. And like I said previously, censorship isn't a clearly evil thing, it's not this idea of North Korea watching the TV saying that Kim Jong-un is the sexiest man alive. Implying something should be censored is a form of criticism. The things aren't completely separated, there are nuances that differentiate them and the main one is the use of morality as the basis for the judgment of value.

So then it's...hypothetical censorship, if those people had power? Why should anyone care about what joe schmoe on twitter would do if he had censorship powers? He doesn't, and he probably never will.

Joe schmoe could go on Twitter saying that he watched "Fat Communist Aliens From Venus Who Support Feminism And Voted For Trump And Hillary At The Same Time Somehow" and that something in there offended his values and it normalizes a certain behavior he deems as unacceptable, therefore making it unfit to air on television because of his kids watching and being influenced by it. Is that a criticism? Yes. Is that asking for censorship (and asking, not enforcing since joe schmoe barely has the power to wipe his own ass)? I personally think it is. Criticism is a judgment of quality, while saying something should be changed or suppressed because of moral values is asking for censorship. One is about being good or bad as a piece of art and the other about being right or wrong as an object of public access.

 

[IrishNinja]

are people in this thread really caping for Laci?

 

[Lo_Fi]

Listen, it's absolutely fine if you don't think "South Park has a social responsibility and therefore it should be changed" is asking for censorship. It's fine if you think it's just a criticism. I don't agree with you and I won't be able to convince you, like you won't be able to convince me.

I think the miscommunication here is the bolded. Who's doing the changing? If it's someone outside of the south park team (a government official, tv network, etc), then it is censorship, yes. But you're assuming "therefore it should be changed" is only talking to people outside the south park team. It's not. The south park team could read this article and change how they do things based on the article. Not very likely in this example, but it is possible.

Therefore, "x has a social responsibility so it should be changed" is not a call for an outside official to change it. It's a call for someone to change it. That someone could be the show's creators, or it could be an outside official. The first is a creator responding to criticism, the second is censorship. I think the miscommunication lies in that you're assuming the bolded is always requesting the second option.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I think the miscommunication here is the bolded. Who's doing the changing? If it's someone outside of the south park team (a government official, tv network, etc), then it is censorship, yes. But you're assuming "therefore it should be changed" is only talking to people outside the south park team. It's not. The south park team could read this article and change how they do things based on the article. Not very likely in this example, but it is possible.

Therefore, "x has a social responsibility so it should be changed" is not a call for an outside official to change it. It's a call for someone to change it. That someone could be the show's creators, or it could be an outside official. The first is a creator responding to criticism, the second is censorship. I think the miscommunication lies in that you're assuming the bolded is always requesting the second option.

That's actually very fair and I see where you're coming from. Yes, in that scenario where the team changes the content out of their free will, it would not constitute censorship. I assumed initially that the team writing the show would have no interest in changing it, which I admit that it was jumping to a conclusion. I have no way of knowing if that would be the case.

When I said that people were implying that the show should be censored, I didn't mean in that draconian way of shutting it off completely and arresting everyone or anything like that. It's that censorship is literally the suppression of anything that is deemed morally unacceptable despite the creator's intention, so when you ask for something to be taken down or changed you're asking for censorship. However that scenario does require the "lack of cooperation" by the creator, so it's possible in this case that the people behind South Park would look at this and change it out of their own volition.

 

[shockthrill]

I never thought of South Park as a right wing show, even with the whole "South Park Republicans" thing


SP just tends to go after alot of left wing targets, more so than many other cartoons of the 90s that were quite socially liberal, Simpsons, Futurama etc

I never thought Matt and Trey were anti-Social Justice, i think alot of what they have been attacking recently has been the twitter and tumblr crowd

even Simpsons went after that recently

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8M2tg2RkIQ

 

[Lo_Fi]

That's actually very fair and I see where you're coming from. Yes, in that scenario where the team changes the content out of their free will, it would not constitute censorship. I assumed initially that the team writing the show would have no interest in changing it, which I admit that it was jumping to a conclusion. I have no way of knowing if that would be the case.

When I said that people were implying that the show should be censored, I didn't mean in that draconian way of shutting it off completely and arresting everyone or anything like that. It's that censorship is literally the suppression of anything that is deemed morally unacceptable despite the creator's intention, so when you ask for something to be taken down or changed you're asking for censorship. However that scenario does require the "lack of cooperation" by the creator, so it's possible in this case that the people behind South Park would look at this and change it out of their own volition.

I'm glad we can find some common ground! For context, I'm coming at this from a creator's point of view - I'm a game developer. I deal with these scenarios all the time (I directly handle playtesting/criticism all the time), and I would never consider the criticisms I get to be censorship. It's just criticism that I don't feel I need to integrate.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I'm glad we can find some common ground! For context, I'm coming at this from a creator's point of view - I'm a game developer. I deal with these scenarios all the time (I directly handle playtesting/criticism all the time), and I would never consider the criticisms I get to be censorship. It's just criticism that I don't feel I need to integrate.

Yeah, nice conversation I'm journalist so I guess I'm wired to be a little bit sensitive to anything that comes close to censorship lol. For me the concept of censoring something is usually related to morality rather than quality, like those japanese games that show a bit too much tits and ass and get changed (or have people saying they should be changed and that the fanservice is ridiculous) when they get here. But that does suppose the team behind the project wouldn't want those changes, so I guess it only applies to something that was already released. And it also depends on your ability to disregard these suggestions.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

The thing is, the counter culture is the current culture.

So why is it still being treated as the counter-culture? In a country where Donald Trump is the President of the United States, why are we pretending that being an offensive shithead is brave or novel? That apathy and lack of curiosity are rebellion? That voting for a New York billionaire is anti-establishment?

That's the insanity here. We are in a society convinced it's against the man while it passively sucks the man's dick.

What I was getting at, was that they were a part of culture changing, which would've happened no matter what.

We would've had Trump no matter what, because South Park's kind of counter culture would've come from some other place.

We're definitely seeing a change in culture now as well. Just look at stuff like Rick and Morty, RLM, Community, Arrested Development, Bojack Horseman, You're the Worst, Scrubs, Marvel, etc. All of them carry some elements of self deprecation, melancholy, self awareness and irony, whereas something like Wonder Woman is all about true heroism and sacrifice, without putting up a shield of corniness.

The mad and angry counter culture is being changed into something different.