Read the full articleQuote:
All I really wanted was an Okama Gamesphere, but, instead, the 200th and 201st episodes of South Park were an uneasy mishmash of most...
Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
All I really wanted was an Okama Gamesphere, but, instead, the 200th and 201st episodes of South Park were an uneasy mishmash of most...
Southpark showed Muhammad before without this kind of uproar.
...So nobody got killed?
But yeah, censorship = bad. Ahem.
but what about self-censorship? i am on uneasy terms with the idea. there are times when i feel that i can not say or do what i want because, while i dont see anything wrong with whatever it is, i realize that others probably will. sometimes its safer to stay quiet than to have to deal with the negative consequences.
the worst is when it occurs in my creative writing pursuits. while i do mostly write for myself, i also do not want to alienate my supposed audience. sometimes its a matter of revealing just enough to hint at something but not 'coming out' and saying it outright. a similar thing often happens in my therapy sessions, wherein i have to deal with people(my shrink or other clients} who already view me as being "strange and unusual."
That can be challenging too aXa. Sometimes I think I really held back, but people can still sometimes get bent out of shape and I have to wonder if it did me any good to bother trying to modulate.
As far as SP goes though, I do kind of think trampling other people's sacred ground just to make a point about your lack of respect is a little too juvenile for my taste. A culture doesn't think you should create a likeness of their God? I see no good reason not to just leave that alone. You want to make fun of people for keep their women from learning, driving, or being seen in clothing, that's a different story. I may be projecting my own values though.
I read the title from the community section. Glad it is not literally true. I had a Danish shirt for awhile after a fatwa was issued on writers there. Personally, I would tend not to make folly of such matters. I don't believe SP should have been censored, however.
Self-censorship is definitely tricky. I know I do it at times. I'll see something nonsensical on one of my journal sites and want to refute it. Is it worth it though? What do I achieve? It can be even worse with creative pursuits. I write for myself primarily. I can see where it could be fraught with the same perils as anything that involves an audience.
OEC
you people and your misleading thread titles. first the cancelled LOST and now the dead funny men. gives a girl a heart attack to see news like that when she first wakes up.
~K
Ahhh....The way I see it, is your dealing with an army of crazy fucking nut jobs who are willing to do anything to please their God. So yeah...Be smart...And don't make fun of their God. Like Axa said...Use the concept of self-censorship. When you find yourself in a pit of starving, attack-trained pitbulls, you don't go and try to steal their food right in front of them...Just to prove your have a big pair of balls. Use some common sense. I mean, for the South Park dudes..Do you honestly believe there isn't any sleeper cells in the U.S. just sitting impatiently waiting for "The Call"? Use your brains.
Self-censorship is worse; it means voluntarily letting your perspective go unrepresented because an ideological demographic has gotten so full of their opinion that they've started attaching consequences to being disagreed with. Usually this paints them in a bad light intellectually, but by keeping your mouth shut you're A) allowing them to affect you invisibly and therefore without consequence, and B) further strengthening the illusion that their perspective is the only respectable one out there, which is what gets people self-righteous enough to start getting offended by being disagreed with in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by aXa
There shouldn't be negative consequences to opinions. People that create negative consequences by getting offended and lashing out in what they see as revenge are aggressors, and in large numbers often often become oppressors. Accommodating them validates and encourages their behavior in ways they aren't even aware of.
The only response to a glass castle is to kick it the fuck down. The only way to keep people from being offended is to break the illusion that there are 'proper' and 'improper' things to express, and the only way to achieve that is to voice the ones people consider improper whenever the opportunity arises. Forcing them to censor you still weakens their dominance - doing it to yourself strengthens it.
I actually like the idea that some media outlets are doing in response to this. Although it's mainly online stuff. Which is to join in on making fun of Muhammad on their websites as well. The extremists can't target any one individual for death, if everyone joins in on making fun. They can hate all Americans, and already do, but we don't want specific people targeted, because that actually does put them at risk. Which is lame...
I think we, as a secular society, can absolutely not afford to kowtow to fundamentalism.
We have a secular society?
Censorship is bad. People need an open forum of ideas to be able to understand and make informed decisions about the world around them. Of course there are ideas that are offensive, but merely being offended does not give one carte blanche to shut another person out of this forum of ideas.
People should say what's on their minds. If some one else doesn't like it, they're perfectly welcome to offer argument.
I mean seriously, WTF kind of asshole threatens, attaks or kills some guy for DRAWING a PICTURE?!?!? Its a freaking picture!! So what if it breaks their taboos... so what if its offensive to religious people? If they don't like it they don't have to watch it. But they don't get to limit what other people get to express or listen to. They don't get to dictate our lives to us just because they don't like what we do.
Will you vote for Geert Wilders? If not why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
No?
Because he's ridiculously right-wing economically, promotes vast increases to police power and general law enforcement privileges, suggests infringing personal freedom with random laws against things like clothes he doesn't like, panders to racism and xenophobia for political support, places endless emphasis on ethical absurdities like the borders between nation states, seeks heavier punishments for pretty much every 'crime', supports property law applying absolutely for practically everything including ideas and space, and because his haircut fucking sucks.
Seriously, that's not even worth asking. His party ties with the SGP as my polar opposite in the dutch political spectrum. I'm voting PNVD if they still exist, Pirate Party if they don't... or the old stand-by of a big red circle-A across the ballot if people from those two bug me before then.
It's a good idea but not possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Raza
The U.S. is supposed to have a secular government.. secular rule of law.. that was the idea anyway...
a secular world.........that might be quite nice
I'm sure it is. People just need to forget about religion. It happens on a small scale all the time, and scale is just numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
I imagine there's a whole bunch of similar memes and marketing schemes with the potential to be just as persistent, just waiting for somebody to think of them, that we are currently living without. Of course, it's hard to count when your blessings are negatives.
It's a curious situation.
On one hand I do think that this religious idea is stupid and they have every prerogative to make fun of it.
On the other hand, I don't know if a popular comedy show is the place to do it. As I said, it's a popular comedy show, not something like Glen Beck where the idea is just for the creators to rant about whatever it is they are thinking about. The distinction lies in the fact that one creates some sort of plot, or at least props up jokes. I don't really think that making fun of Muhammad and Islam is all that funny.
I also understand the idea to push the envelope and get a reaction by pissing people off, but South Park isn't the only show that is censored. All of them are. No one is allowed to just get on camera and say whatever they want to without it being approved by the network. And if a show is receiving too much negative publicity, one that is supported by advertisers, then it won't be approved. We can debate whether that is a good or bad thing, but it is the reality as it now stands. The alternative has always been public access where you can say whatever you want to with no restraint, but you have to weigh that against having a commercially successful TV show on a network, which carries limitations on expression.
Ah, I remember when the episodes first aired. Non-stop arguments all round.
Personnally, I love South Park for its balls and genuine humour, and I thought these episodes were fantastic.
The point of the first was saying that the religion is "off-limits" and it's not okay to make fun of them. The second episode, which was censored retardedly by the network, not Matt and Trey as I initially believed, was about how no one is immune to being made fun of and that society shouldn't give in to threats. Of course, Kyle's end-of-episode speech about that was completely bleeped out, so now the majority of people think they censored everything on purpose to make their point, but no.
The show wasn't making fun of Muhammed or the religion, either. They didn't say anything bad about them. They had Kyle stick a shank in Jesus' throat and he died, screaming and thrashing around, from that, and no one got blown up for it. South Park makes fun of EVERYONE, and they do it equally. No one in particular gets special attention.
The way I see it, it's a fucking cartoon. If you don't like the image of your precious prophet being censored, don't watch the show. Problem solved. The other religions don't implode when they kill their god (Christian), show him snorting crack (Buddhist), or turn him into the dude from Tron (Judaism). These people need to get over themselves and realize they aren't better than everyone else.
I could understand the upset if the show only and constantly made fun of their religion instead of acknowledging its existence like it does now, but they don't, they rip on everyone and everything.
Here in America, controversy is usually a ratings boost, and advertisers tend to love it. We thankfully do not have a large enough population of fundie muslims that their opinion would do much to affect the bottom line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Censorship of this kind is more the result of fear and political correctness. It's my opinion, though, that any group which threatens violence when parodied should be parodied in every possible form of media.
Actually they don't.......I'm still waiting for them to take it to the next levelQuote:
Originally Posted by DeformedGod
when humans stop refering to themselves as people then a secular government would be a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
They don't? Who are they missing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
And what do you mean by "next level"?
they haven't touched a nerve with a lot of people it seems, all they bother with is the easy jobs............slackers. All that talent, wasted
Ah, well, fair enough I suppose. Although, for a show that's on television at a relatively early hour, I don't know if anything worse would get past the censors.
200 and 201 sparked a 6 hour long debate via Facebook status, to me, it pissed a lot of people off. =D
Well I have always thought that the Muslim Menace was a non-issue, but that's another topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by inox
The real funny thing is that either way it's a win for South Park. In this case censorship was just as scandalous and attention grabbing than if they had freely offended and disgusted.
As well it should be Censorship is a disgusting practice. No reason is good enough to bleep some one out.
remember that one a way back where they dressed up like ghosts to chase the rich people out of town?I found it interesting how they ended that one.
I think south park has gotten pretty shit this season. The only episode I really loled at was the Kayne West Gay Fish one. WTF has happened to Cartman? They changed his voice and personality.
Insulting Sarah Jessica Parker was just retarded and unfunny and that shit with Mohammed and censoring was pointless and about as politically/socially astute as sperm smeared tissue paper. The show just doesn't have an edge anymore. It's lost it's balls.
I've been finding the episodes recently a chore to watch and it used to be one of my favourite shows.
damn the man
How could any government not be ridiculously right-wing economically to an anarchist? Be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
I'm sure his concerns are more intellectual than aesthetic. If I need to take off my motorcycle helmet in a bank then I want you to take off your burka too…Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
He expressly claims that he is not a racist. I have watched many of his interviews (in English) and I concur with his self-assessment. Also, it is not really his fault if a small section of his supporters are drooling rednecks. There are idiots everywhere and on all sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
Calling a politician racist in Europe at the moment is basically a headshot to their career and so the ruling elite are generally willy-nilly leftwing simpletons that care only about keeping their jobs. Meanwhile people like Geert Wilders have to wear a bullet proof vest because freedom of speech isn’t valued by a dangerous subsection of their society.
Tell me, do you think that Pim Fortuyn was a right-wing racist too? I remember reading his obituary (or something to that effect) in a liberal English newspaper back in the day, I was younger and more impressionable and I left thinking that he was probably no loss to the world. How wrong I was.
Wow, the dude is distinctive on that one. Not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
He wants foreign nationals to go home if they break the law. Sounds fair to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
I think his haircut is great so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Anyway, I thought you liked things that deviate from the norm?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
You forgot to add the fact that he wants to add animal rights to the constitution and that he’s a keen environmentalist to your list. It would alleviated the bias a little bit. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkingbreast
This is binary thinking. On both counts, politicians and parties that do it more are still less desirable, and he is at the far end of even the pitiful mainstream spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkingbreast
His concerns are not about banks, and they are not consistent with other clothing restrictions - most of which I object to in their own right, at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkingbreast
I didn't that say he was racist; I said he pandered to racism for political support, which remains true and distasteful.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkingbreast
The muslim thing in the Netherlands mostly isn't racism per sé; I'm in the middle of it and well aware of the nuances. But it is a form of discrimination functioning of the same mechanisms, and if parallels to racism are necessary to convince people of the significance of that then I'm down with drawing them.
It is neither fair, nor all he wants in the field of heavier punishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkingbreast
It is entirely to hideous for any amount of deviant value to salvage, and it doesn't even have a whole lot of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkingbreast
Every party in the Netherlands claims to be environmentalist; the differences there tend to show only when you compare their policies in practise, of which he has had none. And this is the first I hear of the animal rights thing, which considering I've been surrounded with his campaigns shows how high it is on his list of priorities.Quote:
You forgot to add the fact that he wants to add animal rights to the constitution and that he’s a keen environmentalist to your list. It would alleviated the bias a little bit. ;)
Just wanted to say freedom of speech (and thus, thought) is great. Too bad not everyone has it. Too bad some want it abridged.