The South Park Creators at TAM5

Really? Huh. I’ve never been a fan of South Park. There’s nothing especially appealing about the show, and their constant use of “gay” as a derogatory term (not to mention the perpetuation of the f-word) gains them huge black marks for me.

Why the hell were they invited to TAM? I hope no one there asked them to apply critical thinking to their libertarianism.

@Brandon- You should really learn more about somebody before you judge them. If you knew anything about Trey and Matt you’d understand how ignorant your statements are. As far as the show goes, it’s called a sense of humor; get one.

I’ve seen pretty much every episode of the first half of the show’s run. It’s gone downhill, and I can’t exactly explain how. Sure, some episodes are pure genius, but others are just FSM-awful. It’s hit-or-miss.

As for Trey and Matt, from what I’ve seen, they seem like cool guys. I’d have gotten their autographs, too, and the Bible was a perfect choice to have them sign it.

@YetAnotherAtheist:

I feel the same way, and I had to start thinking about it. I realized that a lot of their earlier shows were brilliant, but for me it seemed to crown when the big movie hit theaters, and after that it just kind of seemed really anticlimactic (at least to me).

The place it really started to go downhill was around 2000. When I thought back, I realized that that was when it really turned for me. Prior to that, I didn’t always agree with them and sometimes they mocked some viewpoint I held, but they always seemed to understand that the heart of parody is a good understanding of the subject. They may have mocked some viewpoint I held, but at least they weren’t just making shit up about my position at random. When you just make shit up about something you don’t like, rather than actually do a little research, and then try to parody your made-up version, it doesn’t really work very well. And in 2000, it seemed that they started towing a party line (you know which one I’m talking about too). That is when it stopped feeling like entertainment and started feeling like propaganda.

My mom thinks I “hate” them and “refuse to watch” them because I’m “mad that they made fun of atheists”. I have explained time and time again, but it goes in one ear and out the other, that I don’t “hate” them, nor do I “refuse to watch” them. I have just lost interest in the show and have better things to do. And the atheist episode–not the one everyone’s talking about but the earlier one that involved Catholics–simply cut the last lingering shred of interest I had felt for the show. They no longer seemed to take pride in it. I don’t care about “making fun of atheists”, but when someone parodizes atheists based entirely on preconceived notions and what seems like a handbook of poorly-conceived apologetics, I get the feeling that they really don’t take any real pride in their work anymore. I’m not “angry that they made fun of atheists”. I simply don’t really care anymore, and that wasn’t the only thing that did it, or even the most significant thing.

My brother knows my complaints and agrees with my points, but still watches the show and occasionally I will watch one that he highly recommends or will watch one of my many DVD’s of the early seasons. Naturally, every time my mom “catches” me doing that, her eyes go round and she demands to know why I’m watching South Park when “you said you were never going to watch it again”. I never said that, but what does she care about reality? She wants desperately to believe I’m some kind of atheist hypocrite who can dish it out but can’t take it, and refuses to hear anything else. She is an absolute study in confirmation bias–she has it down to a science.

Judging from my brother’s description and some of the newer shows I’ve seen, they do seem to be improving a bit recently, but I don’t think they’re ever going to re-capture what they had before, nor do I think it possible for them to build it into something new and better. There was brilliant writing and brilliant points underlying the vulgarity in the early shows, but the thing that really sold a lot of it was the shock value, and it’s kind of hard to maintain that sort of thing. Especially when you can the brilliance for a few years and rely entirely on shock value.

I still thoroughly enjoy Baseketball, though that is mostly because I enjoy reveling in Trey’s pretty face and Matt’s amazing ass. They were quite a delicious pair of eye-candies for me back in the day!

And I still refer to “Makin’ Bacon with Macon” when we feed any pork product to our obese little piglet of a chihuahua. I simply can’t help it!

@Brandon
Yeah I agree with everything you said. I don’t know if I have a huge problem with the characters on South Park saying “gay” like the average 12 year old would do. I mean it might be better to not do it, but if they just use it as a character thing then okay. But they had a whole episode devoted to basically telling anyone who thinks the word means nothing to go fuck themselves. I really disliked that episode. It’s really too bad because it was around this time I heard their views on atheism and it just soured me on the whole show after so many years of it being my favorite.

This past season was absolutely phenomenal! I friggin love these guys – no one is safe and everyone will be offended!

Richard Dawkins humping Ms. Garrison – farkin hilarious!

Is that Mr. Deity at 18.48 ?? lol

“the prevalence of “gay” as a derogatory term has been increasing since I started paying attention in the 1970s. It’s disgusting, and subtly and not-so-subtly encourages acceptance of an anti-gay mindset in society”

And yet society has been moving steadily toward acceptance of gays since the 1970s.

Hmm…perhaps words really are just words, and meanings evolve.

Just sayin’.

It doesn’t surprise me that Trey Parker would say something stupid like that as an explanation for what “atheists” believe, it explains his comments here and that stupid episode with Dawkins. I didn’t see the show on psychics, and I stopped watching quite early on, but the shows I watched were not intelligent or insightful, they were stupid and crude. I can understand people liking that sort of humour but I don’t understand why skeptics would be all over it. It seems to me that Matt and Trey are deeply cynical of humanity, and are kneejerk unthinking skeptics.

How do they figure into the “Don’t Be a Dick” debate? They basically take to extremes all the things people were complaining about. I guess there was an imposter who does a mean impression of Phil Plait there.

For skeptical comedy that’s intelligent and funny Mitchell and Webb, or Tim Minchin, are so much better than those cunts (I suddenly had the urge to use a forbidden word). Futurama is a million times better than South Park.

Take offence at all you want, but until you realise that you are no more entitled to stop someone causing you offence than Muslims are entitled to stop people drawing Mohammed then you miss the point of free speech.

Where did I say I wanted to stop them from exercising free speech? Yes, it would be nice if they stopped using language that perpetuates an attitude that homosexuality is inherently wrong and immoral, but I can’t force them to stop. It’s Parker and Stone’s right to use that language if they wish, and it’s my right to dislike the show and label it as offensive and homophobic. The use of slurs can’t be legally punished, but it can be condemned by society.
And really, you think drawing a picture of Mohammed is the same as calling someone a faggot? Do you know what the word means? A faggot was traditionally a bundle of firewood. People started calling homosexuals faggots because they were condemned to burn in Hell, and because many places routinely burned homosexuals at the stake if they were found out. Calling someone a faggot means you are telling them they should be burned alive.

And, just to be pedantic, gay actually means happy. Its meaning has evolved several times in the past few centuries.

Yes, I know this. Gay originally meant carefree, and was often used to describe happy bachelors/bachelorettes. It was adopted by homosexuals at a time when the word homosexual still meant a mental disorder, and the only other option was the word queer, which was a pejorative (this is similar to the atheists/secular humanists who adopt the word “bright” to get away from the stigma of atheism).
It wasn’t until the word was firmly established as meaning “homosexual” that people started using it as a pejorative.
Furthermore, gay is still in popular use as the most common synonym for homosexual. When you use “gay” as an insult, you’re saying homosexuality is bad, because gay still means homosexual. It hasn’t “evolved” out of that usage in the least.
You can’t use “that’s so Jewish” as an insult and claim that you’re not casting aspersions on Judaism. Why is it okay for people to do this to gay people?

The thing about Matt and Trey is that they seem to be professional contrarians. They like to bite the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I recall that they were awarded some kind of honor (I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment) by some liberal organization, and while accepting the award, they flat-out insulted the group–and likeminded people–who’d presented it, making some comment that went something like, “The only people we have less respect for than conservatives are liberals.” I’m sure they’d received plenty of criticism from both sides up to that point: from Jesus freaks on the right and overly-P.C., would-be censors on the left. Still, the statement seemed unduly rude, considering the venue.

Then they did the whole episode lambasting George Clooney, who it turns out was one of their earliest vocal supporters. (Literally vocal–he provided the voice of the dog in the Big Gay Al episode.) Even if they disagree with his politics, that seemed to me like a dickish thing to do, considering it was, in my understanding, no small amount of support from him that helped get them on the air in the first place. Also, Matt even appeared in an interview in Bowling for Columbine; now, surely rubbing elbows with the likes of Michael Moore isn’t a libertarian’s idea of a fun time! Perhaps making all that money in the syndication deal a few years later shifted their priorities rightward?

Personally, although South Park has given me some gut-busthing laughs in the past, I much prefer Family Guy these days. Seth McFarlane is an unashamed, unabashed liberal atheist–and doesn’t shy from showing it in his work.

And finally, Lukas, maybe being gay gives one a different perspective on this issue. Atheists poking fun at and calling religious folk names isn’t the best analogy in this instance. The continued use of the word “gay” as derogatory creates and fosters an environment that is hostile to gays and lesbians–whether you wish to believe it or not. (By the way, the comparisons of the use of “fag” to the use of “nigger” are spot on. To my ear, one is just as hateful as the other. No one group has a monopoly on oppression.)

We gays are all too familiar with violent attacks on us for simply being who we are. On the contrary, in a country as religious as America, it’s rare to hear of attacks on individuals or groups in response to their religious beliefs. It’s all too common to read about religious nuts attacking gays. In the 80s, radical gay groups disrupted Catholic Mass. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalists murdered–and continue to do so–queers. “Your god is a lie” does not even compare to “DIE FAGGOT DIE!” You’re comparing apples and oranges.

To put it more succinctly, one is a state of being. The other is a state of belief.

JustSayin’:

“The continued use of the word “gay” as derogatory creates and fosters an environment that is hostile to gays and lesbians”

First of all, this has nothing to do with what I said. I said that merely being offended should not be an argument against something. If you actually think that usage of the term is harmful to you, this is an entirely different discussion.

Second: Kids typically don’t think of homosexuals when they use terms like “that’s gay” or “you’re a fag”. These terms have become generic insults. So I don’t think that we can look at how the term is used, and deduce that usage of the term leads to more anti-homosexual behavior. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested in being proven wrong.

“To put it more succinctly, one is a state of being. The other is a state of belief.”

I realize that. How does it give you the right to not be offended by other people, especially since the thing you are offended by typically wasn’t even meant as an offense?

If the show offends you, don’t watch it. If you actually think that the show makes the situation for homosexuals worse, make that argument, rather than saying that it is offensive.

(As an aside, atheists also use the “this is offensive” argument in discussions of beliefs. For example, Sam Harris used it when arguing against the “Ground Zero Mosque”. He actually said that it shouldn’t be built because it is offensive to him.)

Jagyr:

“Unfortunately, in my experience, the atheist community is riddled with straight, white, middle class males who can’t be bothered to care about their less privileged allies.”

How about addressing the topic, rather than attacking me based on things you really have no idea about? You know, I find what you’ve just said about me extremely offensive.

Sorry ’bout the broken link. Here’s the working one (I hope):

http://www.cs.earlham.edu/%7Ehyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm

And one last thing. Although I realize that language does evolve, and meanings change, I believe–and I seem to recall someone making this point earlier, so forgive me for repeating it–that most of the people in this country would be rightfully horrified if they heard “you’re a nigger” being tossed around as casually and in the same context as the phrase Lukas used in his example above. Why is it that one of those statements should invite a shitstorm (and rightfully so), while the other should simply be shrugged off? One can make the case that these words and phrases are harmless, but to the people at whom they were originally–and in many cases, still are–hurled, it’s quite the opposite.

As Bayard Rustin, pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement, longtime advisor to MLK, and openly gay man said: “The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That’s our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.”

However, I don’t think Rustin meant for that goal to be realized through the means of external censorship–which I also oppose–but through common understanding and empathy.

Huh, I didn’t realize it had switched over to my other screen name…luckily my avatar is consistent.

Lukas –
I wasn’t directly “attacking” you, I was making an observation on a disappointing trend I’ve seen in the atheist community. Since you’ve taken it personally, I should allow you to prove me wrong about you.

So please, tell us, what minority groups are you a member of? When have you felt discriminated against because of your minority status? And what exactly about that experience made you decide that hate speech was an acceptable part of everyday conversation?

And for the record, no one here has been arguing for the right to not be offended. We have been making the argument that hate speech makes life worse for minorities. Is there something about that argument you disagree with, or would you prefer to continue making fallacious arguments against strawmen?

Jagyr,

Unfortunately, in my experience, the atheist community is riddled with straight, white, middle class males who can’t be bothered to care about their less privileged allies.

That’s bigoted of you. What has their orientation, “race”, class, or sex got to do with that? If I were to preface group labels with people who are acting in a negative way when there’s no connection you probably wouldn’t like it. How would you like it if I were to now start talking about homosexuals who write ignorant bullshit in this community? It would be unfair on homosexuals because homosexuality didn’t make you write the stupid shit you write. Attacking people for how they were born doesn’t make us want to care more about our less privileged allies. You might want to think about the hypocrisy of denouncing using “gay” as a derogatory term while associating peoples sex, race, or orientation with negative behaviour.

I’d like to take a break from arguing for a moment, and civilly invite everyone who might be reading this post to stop and take a moment to examine their privileges.

I’m a member of more majorities than not. I may be an atheist and a bisexual, yes. But I’m white, I’m male, I’m above the poverty line (living month to month, and getting harder each month, but I’m doing pretty well compared to many). Hell, I even married a woman, so my sexual identity is almost never an issue in my everyday life – I might as well be heterosexual, for most practical purposes.

Last year, a self-described Angry Black Woman really shut me down in an internet debate very like the one we’re having right now. She shocked me by implying that I was a racist, and of course I defended myself strenuously. She did withdraw the charge of racism, as I recall, but she was dead-on right that I had plenty of unexamined privilege.

Being privileged means that you aren’t constantly aware of the ways that discrimination affects you – it takes a conscious effort to put yourself in the position of the other and consider all sides of an issue.

I highly suggest this cartoon by Barry Deutsch. The cartoon is specifically about racism, but those excuses are also made for sexism, homophobia, etc.

This one also seems especially appropriate to this thread, when viewed in the context of homophobia.

I’m not going to declare that anyone in this thread is evil or a bigot. But as members of a privileged majority, it’s our responsibility to remember that not all bigotry is as blatant as the Klan or the Phelps. We need to be more self aware.

Lukas –

If I attacked you, it was by implying that you don’t care about those that are less privileged.

Now you say the burden of proof is on me. Do I have to provide evidence for you not caring about the plight of gays? I’d point to your post defending hate speech as evidence.

The only other claim I’ve made is that there are a lot of members of the privileged majority that don’t care about oppressed minorities as long as they’re not affected. Is that the kind of thing I really need to cite scientific studies for? If I had claimed that there are a lot of Christians who don’t care that atheists are discriminated against, somehow I don’t think people here would be demanding that I provide evidence.

And contrary to your claim, I have addressed people’s arguments instead of merely attacking them. Though if I’ve missed one, let me know.

And yes, we’re off the original topic, but this is a natural progression of the discussion of why some people dislike South Park. Besides, a debate (or even an argument) is much more entertaining than a repetition of “South Park is so cool” “Yeah Matt and Trey are my heroes” “Wasn’t episode XYZ so funny you guys?”.
At least to me it is. :p But I have been known to get sucked into the “Somebody is wrong on the Internet!” wormhole on occasion. (side note: apparently my autocorrecter says that Internet should be capitalized…I didn’t know it was a proper noun).

Aj –

It’s bigoted of you to write about people in a way that associates a behaviour with characteristics that have nothing to do with it. This is exactly the type of behaviour I associate with bigots, that’s why I call you one, and your subsequent comments only reinforce it.

The behavior I talked about was apathy towards oppressed minorities. The characteristic I associated with it was being a part of the privileged majority. You can’t possibly claim that those things have nothing to do with each other?

“Step 1: Deny everything”
The only denials I was making was in the context of trying to clarify what I said in response to people who I felt misinterpreted my observations as direct attacks. A consequence of me wording my point poorly, I suppose.

“Step 2: Point to an extreme that no one mentioned and say you’re not like that”
I honestly don’t see where I did this. Please point it out for me?

“Step 3: Falsely counter-accuse the person of the same things”
Again, I don’t understand. What things am I counter-accusing people of? I assume the answer is “bigotry”, since that’s what I was accused of, but I didn’t actually call anyone a bigot. I did imply earlier that some commenters were being insensitive, which I suppose could be called soft bigotry, but it wasn’t until after I made those comments that you accused me of bigotry…so who’s counter-accusing who?

And “That Guy” is the guy who insists he’s not a bigot, and then comes in to valiantly defend the bigot from the victim.

It’s wrong to throw unrelated labels at behaviour to associate them[…]. Associating people with behaviour this way is the basis of implicit prejudice.

I agree with you. This is the main conflict between the two of us, I think. My argument is that being a privileged majority member is related to apathy towards minority issues. Evidently, you disagree.

Love the pics of you with Trey and Matt. True geniuses when it comes to their work.