ilovefuzz.com

morningstaru wrote:The problem comes in drawing the line...when is it ok to make fun of something? It goes back to much of the debate over the "cartoon wars" episode with muhammad.
*side note south park HAS shown a depiction of muhmmad before, check out the episode "super best friends"

What qualities must a minority possess to put a safeguard on them that says "no not them, it isn't fair"?
What litmus test must a published work pass to insure it is giving a fair and balanced opinion? Surely south park would fail all accounts.

You could argue Trey Parker has some responsibility as a figure who is well respected amongst younger crowds, but pulling punches has never been his strong point
I'm not sure what kind of alternative we're reaching for here. The show has always based it's humor on tearing down strawmen, it's sorta what makes the show so ridiculous.

But what you're arguing is that everything should always be acceptable and you're butthurt if you disagree, basically. It's the Encyclopedia Dramatica defense and I hate it. Most of the "strawmen" aren't even intentional in the literal sense, they're just reinforcing the misconceptions society already has and they likely have themselves. I'm sorry but it's extremely difficult to respect anyone who suggests this is a good for thing for humour.

I understand what you're saying, but I think your anger is wrongly directed at South Park. Direct your hate at those to gullible to see through the show and come to the conclusion that is what transsexuals are really like.

Actually, no. If that's all the information someone has then "gullibility" isn't necessarily the case. Most people simply never follow anything up with additional research(god knows Trey Parker doesn't), this is simply a blatantly observable fact that even Matt and Trey should be aware of(and if anything, take advantage of). It's hard to shake off a first impression, and regardless, you can't deny that if a more positive image was fed to those "gullible" people, then there would be a better outcome. In fact most of politics, activism is based on feeding the correct information to these people, do you not realise this? Politics in general is a war on who gets to program the "gullible" people and unfortunately Matt and Trey have made themselves big players. Honestly, that's a bullshit excuse and one of the worst points yet in the thread. If some white supremacist spouts shit and takes advantage of "gullible" people, they're still at fault.

The "Mrs. Garrison" displayed isn't even a stereotype, it isn't even what a real transsexual is like, at all. It's not reinforcing a stereotype, which is bad in of itself, it's reinforing a misconception and making moral judgements based of it. It goes beyond the strawmen they normally use into a shitty lie.

Honestly, the fact that South Park is getting you, Devi and others to defend it without consideration of it being in the wrong in the slightest just shows how mind warping it can be. though if anything I do as much blame the fans who push the idea Trey can do no wrong. It's fucking retarded that you automatically loose any argument against it even if you can pull up quotes showing what an uninformed ass Trey is. I'm the only one providing any actual evidence and I'm still loosing the argument. That's fucked up and insane. That's how much this kind of shit gets into your head.

It's a bummer there's no chat to gossip about this thread.

PumpkinPieces wrote:It's a bummer there's no chat to gossip about this thread.

(Hopefully this didn't get butchered...timed out while constructing this and lost the 1st copy )

Roseweave wrote:
But what you're arguing is that everything should always be acceptable and you're butthurt if you disagree, basically.

Call it what you want, it's the truth. You keep bringing up respect, yet you've shown very little for opposing viewpoints because you believe your's is right.
Everything is permissible or nothing is. This extends not only to the subject matter, but the way in which an artist chooses to approach said subject matter.
Some people say the following image is "irresponsible" and "offensive"

Some also say it is "thought provoking" and "moving". If the artist were forced to remove the irresponsible and offensive elements would the piece still be thought provoking and moving?
Open discourse is better than ignoring a subject. I was a long time participant in GSA groups and one running theme was to simply get people talking about lgbt issues, regardless if it made them uncomfortable or offended them, and regardless if it just angered people more. Exposure was better than being ignored.

As a (half) Chinese American(other half Cuban) I have been deeply offended by the way South Park has addresse Chinese culture (City Wok, or the episode where butters and cartman pretend to be chinese and talk with racists accents). At least Mr. Garrison is a well known/loved character in the SP mythos. While clearly insane, Garrison is approached quite endearingly. Chinese people have almost always been portrayed in a negative light in the American media. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Kato in the Green Hornet? Every english Jackie Chan film? Hell the only saving grace for Chinese Americans has been Bruce Lee (post green hornet ), and that man has been dead for a few decades. Little is known about real chinese culture by the typical american (even amongst chinese americans), and almost all depictions in the media have been inaccurate and/or reinforced existing stereotypes (Hi William Hung). One of the oldest civilizations in the world yet so little is known about it or respected about it...so are Chinese people off limits too?

Back in High School I was captain of the football team, and won the state championships for wrestling. Nobody dared mess with me in high school, as it would result in their untimely death. If anyone said anything about me personally, my girlfriend or my whore of an Aunt who was having an affair with the lacrosse coach on school property, there were people who "had my back". Yet some people still saw it fit to call me "Charlie Chan" and it was "ok". When race entered in people seemed to raise no objections. I could argue there are far more Chinese people than transgender in the world, and yet despite being a larger minority Chinese people still have an equal amount of difficulty penetrating existing stereotypes. Therefor Chinese people should be MORE off limits than transgender. You might say "well now that isn't true", but I am not transgender, and I don't believe you are Chinese, so neither of us is going to get anywhere.

Nobody has said South Park isn't wrong in the slightest, you are jumping to extremes to validate your stance. Can't a stereotype and a misconception be the same thing? Who is the judge and jury of what defines each? Surely you wouldn't seem to be the best judge as you are bias towards one side. It's a dangerous slope to go down to call for some sort of objective standard to judge satire by. The responsibility falls upon the writers of the show and the company that airs it (they have expressed this right in the past, in pulling scientology episodes or episodes depicting muhammad). Sure television viewers are given a voice in the ratings, but you can hardly hope to educate the masses on their television viewing tendencies. An admirable quest, but one that could take centuries to carry out.

You have brought up interesting points and facts, but you are "losing" the argument because of your agressive tone in painting everyone else as irrational and your insistance that your side is the only correct side. It's hard to gain allies when you are making blanket statements about an entire forum. You can argue your point through rational discource, but please stop the personal attacks on the intelligence of anyone who enjoys south park, it is quite off-putting.

Damnit devi went all Phil before I finished



I'm kinda happy chat is gone...as cool as it was to have Aen/tom/devi and everyone else in the same place at once, it killed the message board. The forums became pretty barren after chat was started.

If the artist were forced to remove the irresponsible and offensive elements would the piece still be thought provoking and moving?

That's what Martin Scorcese once said about the taboo themes and using those in art...you can't stick to 'THE TRUTH',just to be PC...you have to be free to throw anything in art,and see what happens...yeah,someone might get offended...but that's the price you pay (this was rather a poor paraphrase,but there you have it )...

dude, i freaking love pee wee's playhouse.

devi ever wrote:So yeah, as the general forum now says "pee wee's playhouse rules now in effect"

I love this place

I don't think that's very fair, if you'd bothered to read the email I gave very good reasoning as to why. I'm on disability so I don't have much money, I already bought two of your pedals first hand because I knew how expensive transition was in the US, I nearly always try to get gear second hand, and I'm ill so I can't work unless I feel like having panic attacks every monday. I appreciate lifting the ban, but you're being insensitive beyond belief. There was no way I was going to Paypal you $100 out of the blue when I was being treated like that. It's unfair that I have to work from the premise that only one form of activism is acceptable, this is exactly what I meant by the argument being one sided. By definition, I cannot argue my case since it is based on the idea that exchange of ideas and proposing and countering them is what's important, not some kind of charity work.

I don't believe I'm being that insulting, there is no way for me to make this argument without calling into question the credibility of people who watch this and think it's great. Several times however I did state that many of the people I'm arguing against are sometimes basically intelligent who've gotten caught up in a trend. The argument that these certain episodes are perfectly fine is going to be offensive to people - it goes both ways. There is no way to avoid an argument like this being heated, but if you're a fan of "free speech" it has to be had. I believe everyone should be allowed argue their case, even if Trey found this at random I would absolute hear what he had to say first, even if he was being a bit insulting.

If you ban me over this, so be it, but banning someone without warning and reversing the ban only to shame that person by casting them as a miser or hypocrite is mean. I'm sure someone will say I'm just playing the victim, though. Even if I'm not banned I'm evidentally not wanted.

Shit is fucked up... I vote we close the thread and never speak of it again, the argument has clearly come to a stalemate.

I just don't like having character judgements implied on me because I didn't fork over $100 to someone who just banned me without warning, or because I believe argument is possibly more important than fund raising when it comes to activism. The whole thing has left me feeling depressed and uncomfortable and I'm not sure whether to stay here or not, or sell my pedals or what.

"Shit is fucked up... I vote we close the thread and never speak of it again, the argument has clearly come to a stalemate."

Locked.