>>78322700
I think more than anything the have a disdain for bullshit

>>78322739
this.
i think 'go god go' spelled it out perfectly. the right thing to be is sensible. things that are correct don't uniformly line up with any political party or any kind of 'ism'
don't be an 'ist'. just be right.

>war
depends on the war probably
>gun control
they like guns
>do they actually hate gingers
trey said gingers make him uncomfortable and that he'd hate to have a ginger child, but I doubt if he hates them as people

>>78323063
Exactly. What is important is the golden mean.

>>78323186
wasn't their third episode (volcano) anti -gun.

Im ginger and a massive fan, shit

>>78323063
>>78322739
>>78323256

>this is what high school kiddies actually believe

>>78323322
*tips*

>>78323287
I don't think that episode was anti-gun, it was more critical of hunting culture. But even then I think it wasn't anti-hunting, just Trey saying 'hunting squicks me and I hate seeing animals die'

I remember Matt said in an interview that their politics were very 'Colorado' because they're pro guns, pro gay marriage, and pro legalization.

>>78323333
Witnessed.

>>78323256
It's called a fallacy for a reason.

>>78323287
I just watched that episode last night and I didn't really get any pro- or anti- message from it. Just the usual "I don't want to hurt animals" thing from Stan while Kenny being Kenny gladly went for it.
Stan is the sensitive one of the group.

>>78323063
Their ideology is very consistently Libertarian.

>>78323441
Libertarians are very consistently correct.

South Park is sometimes insightful but treating it like it presents a neutral position devoid of its own brand of "bullshit" is naive. Their method is to take to polarised opinions, exaggerate and infantilise both sides using various absurd caricatures as strawmen, and then have every episode's message monologued directly to the audience for reasons unknown.

It's easy to look smart when you're writing the opposition according to their worst hyperbole.

An egregious example would be Jimmy in one of the recent episodes stating that he preferred to be called handicapped as a rebuke to P.C Principal's political correctness. The message being that even these alleged oppressed minorities find any such treatment patronising, and any attempt to sanitise language is fascistic and deluded. Which would be fine, if either Matt or Trey could speak for the oppressed minority in question - which they can't. His words and his character are invented to conveniently prop up their arguments.

A lot of problems are much more complicated than this, and while their scepticism towards jingoistic propaganda and any uncritical repetition of ideological points of view is to be lauded, their own word should not be taken as the final word in any argument by any means.

In their words: everyone is a target. Either its all funny, or none of it is.

>>78323578
Not remotely, especially in regards to economic policy.

>>78323256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

>Some would say that hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth must therefore be somewhere in between.

>>78323615
Odd, when you consider how many unfunny episodes they've made - especially if they do subscribe to the golden mean.

Apparently some things are funny, sometimes, and other times, some other things aren't funny.

>>78323597
>It's easy to look smart when you're writing the opposition according to their worst hyperbole.
I don't think South Park has ever been about pseudo-intellectualism, and the fact that those people who are in fact self-righteous assholes who go to south park and use them as arguments to support their side shouldn't represent how anyone feels about the cartoon

I think you need to realize that South Park isn't debating or arguing anything, it's just a comedy show that makes fun of current issues
Them making fun of one side more than the other just reflects what's happening in the news, not a specific side that the creators have

I mean to make this just like a 2 sentence remark, but you missed "the point"* of south park by miles

*the point being don't take a comedy cartoon seriously

>>78323597
>South Park is sometimes insightful but treating it like it presents a neutral position devoid of its own brand of "bullshit" is naive.
100% correct.

>An egregious example would be Jimmy in one of the recent episodes stating that he preferred to be called handicapped as a rebuke to P.C Principal's political correctness. The message being that even these alleged oppressed minorities find any such treatment patronising, and any attempt to sanitise language is fascistic and deluded. Which would be fine, if either Matt or Trey could speak for the oppressed minority in question - which they can't. His words and his character are invented to conveniently prop up their arguments.
This is wrong, though. You don't need to be part of a group to point out why treating them a certain way is stupid. Especially when "retarded" literally means "slow"; it's not disparaging to the mentally retarded to call something stupid, or to say that the mentally retarded are retarded.

>>78323597
To be fair, sometimes they don't use exaggerated caricatures because what they're talking about is so ridiculous it's beyond being exaggerated in satire.

Like people saying smoking marijuana will make you a terrorist or PC people doing jazz hands because clapping is too triggering.

The anti-anti-smoking episode is probably their most shameless strawman. Still love that episode though, because it's fucking funny.

M and T are letters.
They don't possess the ability to have political opinions.

Fucking moron.

>>78323715
That's fine, and to an extent, I agree. I think people who don't belong to a minority can have an opinion on an issue relating to that minority. I just think in Matt and Trey's case, it was egregious because they put the words in the mouth of an invented retarded person, who doesn't actually represent the views of any retarded person, but the views of Matt and Trey. It's one thing to go "this is what I think about the treatment of black people", and another to go "this is how I think black people -should- and will feel about this issue".

It would have been funnier, and smarter, if it had been Timmy instead of Jimmy, and was instead just a series of people interpreting the word "Timmy!" for their own means.

>>78323926
Well, the thing is Jimmy just happened to be the 'journalist' character who is also a comedian who has an emotional investment in free speech, so he was kind of the perfect character for the role, regardless of whether he's disabled.

>>78323697
Satire is a form of comedy, and is meant to be a serious critique of political thought and systems. I think this is a well-crafted bait post, but I'm replying in case anyone actually shares this opinion. Just because it makes you laugh doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't make you think, or that if you do think about it, you're somehow consuming it the wrong way.

I mean, you're way off base in describing South Park as pseudo-intellectual, or applying it to my criticism of South Park. I think you're somehow struggling to understand a fairly basic concept in both story-telling and rhetoric which is when a protagonist delivers a thoughtful speech to the audience offering a third, more sensible way to two antagonistic and chaotic forces, then you're meant to sympathise and agree with that protagonist.

Really, I'm baffled as to how you think South Park is apolitical by virtue of being a comedy, or that Matt and Trey as creators are somehow devoid of opinions themselves.

>>78323256
>>78323063
>>78322739
Well the important thing is that South Park has found a way to feel superior to both sides

>>78323625
i always found it ironic reagan himself made the nuclear family an impossible dream for the average americans

>>78323979
But Jimmy's disability was used to make a point about the SJW treatment of the disabled, which was the crux of the episode, given that the conflict between Jimmy and PC Principal hinged on the use of the word "retarded" in a pejorative fashion.

PC Principal was demonstrated as being unreasonable by virtue of the fact that the minority he was attempting to defend or protect (Jimmy, a disabled kid) disdained his attempts to do so, and found them patronising. Having an able-bodied kid offer the same defense doesn't demonstrate that PC is being unreasonable, as at that point, the opinions of the disabled are purely speculative.

So you can't really say "regardless of whether he's disabled" when that is in fact a crucial element of the episode's plot, and the theme/ message of the episode.

>>78324038
>is meant to be a serious critique
There's your problem again, you're still taking south park seriously
Sure, it's satire, but as you said it's not well crafted in any form. Why would you take something like this seriously? In fact, you really shouldn't take it seriously based on all of the things that happen in the cartoon
To summarize an argument against this point only, South Park is only satire 1/3 of the time

> I think you're somehow struggling to understand a fairly basic concept in both story-telling and rhetoric which is when a protagonist delivers a thoughtful speech to the audience offering a third, more sensible way to two antagonistic and chaotic forces, then you're meant to sympathise and agree with that protagonist.
For some reason I don't think you actually watch south park, like, especially this last season
Really, I'm baffled as to why you insist that South Park is delivers thoughtful approaches to topical debates and then you just tear them to shit for not doing that thing well

I never said South Park was apolitical, I just said that all they are doing is making fun of things popular in today's media/current ideas so you shouldn't look to south park to represent some sort of argument just because other people do

>>78324119
>Having an able-bodied kid offer the same defense doesn't demonstrate that PC is being unreasonable, as at that point, the opinions of the disabled are purely speculative.
This implies that PC is only being unreasonable if the opinion he's disagreeing with comes from a disabled person, which is an authoritative fallacy.

The idea that anyone is too weak to handle people using certain words in a newspaper is actually very patronizing, regardless of what individual or group the word is targeting, or what individual or group the pejorative word that is being used to describe people not of that group originated from.

If Kyle were the super school news editor it would have been the same but less funny because Kyle isn't disabled. Or they could have done some jew joke in the paper and Kyle would have defended the writer's right to make jew jokes in a newspaper, whatever.

>>78324302
>If Kyle were the super school news editor it would have been the same
No it wouldnt. Jimmy doing it is a disabled person saying he doesnt find retard offensive, Kyle would be a normal person saying he doesnt think a retard would find retard offensive. One's a conclusion, the other's an opinion you can debate.

>>78324378
You miss the point. It doesn't matter if retards find it offensive, or if anyone finds it offensive at all.

>>78324218
I'm not really sure what you mean by "taking it seriously". Are you trying to say that it's not serious when it makes a political point? Or that the political points, while made in earnest, shouldn't be credited seriously by any serious person?

You seem to be confusing "having an opinion" with "taking it seriously". I mean, what do you think I'm doing? I watch it, sometimes it makes me laugh, sometimes it makes me think, sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree, overall I find the rhetorical structure to be flawed, though not without value. You keep saying things like:

>Why would you take something like this seriously? In fact, you really shouldn't take it seriously based on all of the things that happen in the cartoon

Why not? Why shouldn't I? What larger point are you trying to make? That South Park isn't worthy of any kind of critical thought?

>Really, I'm baffled as to why you insist that South Park is delivers thoughtful approaches to topical debates and then you just tear them to shit for not doing that thing well

Why would you be baffled by this? You're acting like I've somehow presented a paradox, like the two things are mutually exclusive. South Park can attempt to present a thoughtful approach to a topical debate, and often does attempt to do this, but using a flawed approach. Your entire position seems to be founded in an intellectual apathy or malaise.

>I never said South Park was apolitical, I just said that all they are doing is making fun of things popular in today's media/current ideas so you shouldn't look to south park to represent ... argument just because other people do

But they do present arguments? I think that independently of anybody else. They're playing the role of "one sane man", usually offering a moderate synthesis of two seemingly anti-thetical ideas. The episode about Randy struggling with alcohol is probably the best representation of this. You have to understand argument = point of view. Not an essay.

>>78324413
>It doesn't matter if retards find it offensive
That wasnt the point of the episode. If that was the point, they might have had someone say it, or had another retard disagree with Jimmy, instead of just having Jimmy tell all the normies they were wrong and he didnt find it offensive

>>78324549
Nathan disagreed with Jimmy. Yes, he was being a cynical liar, but still.

And Kyle would certainly not have argued 'retards dont' find retard offensive', remember Cartoon Wars? He would have said it didn't matter if they are offended.

>>78324302
>This implies that PC is only being unreasonable if the opinion he's disagreeing with comes from a disabled person, which is an authoritative fallacy.

That's correct, that's exactly what South Park implies. And you clearly don't understand what an authoritative fallacy is. It only applies to situations dealing with facts, not opinions, i.e "x must be right about t because he is a doctor of t!" as opposed to say, relying on evidence or empirical research. It can't be said to apply to opinions or subjective positions, i.e "I found this hurtful as a disabled person".

>The idea that anyone is too weak to handle people using certain words in a newspaper is actually very patronizing, regardless of what individual or group the word is targeting, or what individual or group the pejorative word that is being used to describe people not of that group originated from.

Your argument is based on the fact that you think nobody is capable of being hurt by words or opinions. I disagree with that opinion.

>>78324621
>He would have said it didn't matter if they are offended
Which is a completely different argument than the one Jimmy had

>>78324621
Nathan disagreed with Jimmy. Yes, he was being a cynical liar -

Let me stop you right there. You've just refuted your own argument, and therefore cited something completely irrelevant. "This OTHER authority on the issue had this OTHER opinion in the episode though - well, yes, they were lying about it and didn't actually have the opinion."

>>78324506
You keep saying that South Park doesn't fit the definition of a good Satire
And I keep saying that South Park doesn't fit the definition of a good Satire because it isn't really a Satire

Your ideas are conflicting, not because they are paradoxical, but because you insist that they fit your definition
Like
>>you insist that South Park is delivers thoughtful approaches to topical debates and then you just tear them to shit for not doing that thing well
>South Park can attempt to present a thoughtful approach to a topical debate, and often does attempt to do this
So really, no South Park doesn't actually present thoughtful approach to a topical debate, they just "aspire" to
or
Maybe the writers just find it funny to blow up certain traits of certain parts of society because they think it's stupid or funny
>You have to understand argument = point of view
South Park doesn't have a POV, what the characters think depends on what the writers think is funny, what the characters think is for the most part a punchline in reaction to recent events

>>78322700
>fedora: the cartoon

>>78324654
>That's correct, that's exactly what South Park implies
No it's not. You're projecting on to South Park because you're the type of person who would have been SHOCKED and APPALLED if a non-disabled character said what Jimmy said.
>"x must be right about t because he is a doctor of t!"
Jimmy must be right about disabled people because he is a disabled person, same thing
>Your argument is based on the fact that you think nobody is capable of being hurt by words or opinions.
No it's not. I'd never argue people aren't hurt by words are opinions, but it's patronizing regardless of whether they are or not. I've been called names, and sure it hurts sometimes. It's patronizing to have people want to protect me from that though. I can see why people with a victim complex might enjoy being patronized to though. Point is people have the right to say whatever they want regardless of how bad anyone's feelings are hurt.

>>78324748
How would Nathan actually feeling that way have changed anything?
>>78324708
No. Jimmy never said 'I'm a retard who isn't offended by 'retarded' therefore it's okay'.

>>78324787
Nah, that's just bollocks desu mate. You're talking utter shit. The fact that your argument begins with "Maybe" kinda points to the fact that it's completely speculative on your part, and entirely contingent on evidence unavailable to the audience - and indeed, not actually present in the episodes.

>Your ideas are conflicting, not because they are paradoxical, but because you insist that they fit your definition

But that's literally what you're doing as well.

>Maybe the writers just find it funny to blow up certain traits because they think it's stupid or funny

So they think it's stupid. Gotcha. So, they focus on things they have opinions about. Double gotcha. So, they have opinions on things, or points of view, and they put them in their episodes. Your whole argument is "South Park is just a dumb comedy cartoon because maybe it is, and I've decided it's that way?"

>South Park doesn't have a POV, what the characters think depends on what the writers think is funny, what the characters think is for the most part a punchline in reaction to recent events

So they have a point of view then. The writer's point of view. You've literally just said that. Let me zero in on the exact bit:

>what the characters think depends on what the writers think

or if you like:

>what the characters think is for the most part a punchline in reaction to recent events

Ooo, wonder who's reaction that could be? It's the writers.

Your ideas are non-existent. You're not arguing anything based on the episodes themselves, just a broad impression of the cartoon in general. Considering that this is a show that has literally satirised itself for being "all preachy and up its own ass with messages" - as in, acknowledging that the show has a message - you have yet to show me one piece of credible evidence in support of your opinion.

>>78324921
Because we're talking about the implied authoritative fallacy whereby Jimmy actually sincerely having an opinion on the use of a word used to described the disabled is used to imply that any other opinion is by extension unreasonable, given that Jimmy has a disability and is therefore qualified to talk about it.

Incidentally, your argument is retarded, and so are you.

>>78324921
>No. Jimmy never said 'I'm a retard who isn't offended by 'retarded' therefore it's okay'.

Because Jimmy didn't explicitly point out that that's what the writers were implying doesn't in fact mean they weren't implying it - as you may have noted, despite your crippling autism, implying derives from implicit, which is the opposite of explicit.

>>78325043
Except nowhere in the episode was it argued that because Jimmy is disabled, his opinion on the use of a word used to describe the disabled is correct.

You keep saying it but that's nowhere in the fucking episode.

>>78325043
The point wasn't that Jimmy being disabled made his opinion more valid; it was to show off that PC Principle doesn't actually care about the people he claims to be helping.

>>78325108
>The point wasn't that Jimmy being disabled made his opinion more valid
But it does. PC Principle is wrong because he doesnt care that someone who's actually disabled disagrees with his opinion. It;d be like saying things would be the same if Principal was a retard and Jimmy wasnt

>>78325156
It would be the same though. If, in the hate crime episode, Token's dad actually agreed with hate crime legislation and some white character took the writers' anti-hate crime legislation position, it wouldn't have changed the argument. You're focusing too much on the people and not the idea itself.

>>78325156
>PC Principle is wrong because he doesnt care that someone who's actually disabled disagrees with his opinion.
That's not why he's wrong - Jimmy explains he's wrong because you don't censor quotes.

The fact that he doesn't care about Jimmy's opinion is a a second issue.

>>78325223
If the people dont matter, why does South Park always use characters most affected by the issue to espouse their point? Its taking the easy way out, your point about hate crime looks so much more credible if it comes from a black mouth piece

>>78325107
Yes it was. See below.
>>78325108
>The point wasn't that Jimmy being disabled made his opinion more valid; it was to show off that PC Principle doesn't actually care about the people he claims to be helping.

There's no difference in the two points you've described - they're both one and the same thing. In order to show that PC Principal doesn't actually care about the people he claims to be helping, they had to give the OPINIONS of the people he claims to be helping - in this case, the disabled. They had to show that Jimmy, as a retard, was unaffected by the word retarded, and that his opinion that it was a harmless word undermined PC Principal's opinion that it was harmful because he, as a disabled person, wasn't harmed by it. Unless Jimmy was offering an honest opinion, from the perspective of a disabled person, neither point works. You can't have a black person say "retarded people aren't offended by the word retarded" because it's just a black person's opinion. If you have a disabled person saying "I'm not offended by the word retarded", as the other anon said, it's a conclusion.

PC Principal: "You, the disabled, are harmed by the word "retard", and therefore we must censor it."

Disabled Person: "And yet I am not harmed, and thus do desire or need to be protected. You are wrong."

>>78325229
Other way round. PC Principal wants to censor the words because they're harmful. Jimmy's argument isn't that "the words are harmful, yes, but print them anyway because censorship is bad." It's "the words aren't harmful, so censorship is pointless."

>>78324991
>But that's literally what you're doing as well.
I'm literally arguing that they don't fit your definition; I'm not the one who defined what a satire was and then said that south park wasn't an effective satire

>Your whole argument is "South Park is just a dumb comedy cartoon and I've decided it's that way?"
South Park is a cartoon and many cartoony things happen, which is why it "makes sense" that every body in south park has a gun that they pull out and start aiming at each other, or a child dies every episode and is actually immortal due to lovecraftian rituals
I'm not saying you shouldn't take it seriously simply because it's a cartoon, I'm saying you shouldn't take it seriously because it doesn't adequately represent the topical events/current issues that it references

>So they have a point of view then
You don't have to have an opinion about something to think it's funny
Unless you are arguing that their opinion is that they think it's funny therefore they have an opinion therefore they have a point of view therefore they have an argument therefore they are representing multiple sides of an argument and presenting a neutral third party opinion as a solution/sensible way to approach an issue
In which case, that doesn't make any sense because you are conflating the fact that the think a joke they made is funny to having an opinion about anything or aspiring to deliver thoughtful speeches

>you have yet to show me one piece of credible evidence in support of your opinion
>implying you need to have evidence for an opinion
>implying you have any evidence yourself about your opinion
Seriously, you haven't shown me anything to support your opinion, you've only expanded upon your opinion

You want evidence?
South Park isn't satire because the majority of the references it makes aren't directly linked to a certain opinion or critique or anything other than humor itself
And because you defined satire as a serious critique, south park isn't a satire

>>78325288
>why does South Park always use characters most affected by the issue to espouse their point?
Well, it is a story, not an essay about their opinion, and when writing a story it's good to have characters affected by something if you want to write a story about that something. I mean, the story wouldn't have been possible in the first place if the kid Cartman hit with a rock was just another white kid.
>>78325288
>your point about hate crime looks so much more credible if it comes from a black mouth piece
Perhaps it does to racists like yourself. I think they probably had Token's dad represent their position because they were worried about people calling them racist or whatever. Similar with Chef in the KKK episode.

But the argument and ides do not change at all if a white guy takes Token's dad's position and a black guy disagrees with him.

>>78325398
>I'm literally arguing that they don't fit your definition

Yes, you're arguing that they fit yours: a dumb cartoon with no messages.

>>78325398
South Park is a cartoon and many cartoony things happen, which is why it "makes sense" that every body in south park has a gun that they pull out and start aiming at each other...I'm not saying you shouldn't take it seriously simply because it's a cartoon, I'm saying you shouldn't take it seriously because it doesn't adequately represent the topical events/current issues that it references

Animal Farm is fictional and many fictiony things happen, which is why it "makes sense" that all the animals on the farm develop sentient thought and somehow manage to overthrow their human farmers. I'm not saying you shouldn't take it seriously simply because it's fiction, I'm saying you shouldn't take it seriously because it doesn't adequately represent the topical events/ current issues it references.

>all the rest of your arse-dribble

You can find something humourous because of your opinion about something. If your opinion on something is that it's stupid, you can make a joke of it. Jokes/ humour and opinions/ arguments are not antithetical or mutually exclusive. You don't find something "funny" in a vacuum. You find something funny based on your perspective and your opinions.

>You want evidence? I'll give you an opinion.

I referred to episodes and actual quotes, you just spout more shit without any kind of grounding in something that happened in an episode.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that a joke about something follows this simple formula : "this is stupid! Ahaha."

As opposed to what actually happens in South Park, which is "This is stupid...BECAUSE of the following reasons, preachy monologue."

You can't make fun of anything without the "because opinions" part.

>>78325334
Jimmy:
That was an op-ed piece written by a first grader about the school cafeteria lunch policy, and he thought 'retarded' to be the best word to describe it. As the editor of the paper, I didn't think it right to censor the words that the student used.

It's not to do with his disability.

>>78325413
>but the argument and ideas do not change if the characters change

>i mean, the story wouldn't have been possible in the first place if the kid Cartman hit with a rock was just another white kid

If you re-arrange the order of his post, he disproves himself for you.

Seems to me they're libertarians and poke fun of anyone who want to make laws or restrictions

>>78322700

>Or do they just not give a fuck about anything?

They just forgot to make jokes instead of being preachy faggots

>>78325667
How can you actually be this stupid?

The ideas and arguments are separate from the story. Cartman hitting a black kid is only necessary for a hate crime charge to have occurred in the story, not for arguments for or against hate crime legislation. Whether the person arguing against/for is black/white is completely interchangeable

>>78325660
PC:
All right Jim, thank you. I want to talk to you today about the use of the "R" word in your school paper. You see, the "R" word is very bad.

Jimmy:
Says who?

PC:
Says me. And I know a thing or two about the rights of people with disabilities.

*cut to later*

Jimmy's op-ed piece has the headline "PC Principal's "Retarded" Policy".

PC: Why would a person with a disability not see that what I'm trying to do is protect THEM!?

*cut to later*

PC:
Nathan, could you tell Jimmy how you feel when people use the word "retarded?"

Nathan:
It hurts my feelings because I feel bad.

Jimmy:
Are you serious right now?

...

PC's bro:

Use of the R-word is a derogatory hatespeech which fosters isolation and loneliness!

-later-

Jimmy:
Nathan, what were you doing in there? You and I both know you use the word retarded 400 times a day.

Neither Jimmy or Nathan are hurt by the word retarded, and Jimmy calls into question the Principal's opinion that it does, or can hurt, the disabled, stating that it's really a result of his discomfort surrounding the disabled.

>>78325831
No, they aren't, and no it isn't. You can tell because South Park has literally never swapped the characters around.

>>78325612
Animal Farm is Satire because when the animals do overthrow the human farmers, the book shows how a system like the human's gets put into place and is effectively criticized throughout the book, the satire characterizing socialism
South Park isn't satire because when everybody does get guns people don't actually use the guns and just talk things through, which is funny because it's not how people would expect to use guns, which is not what the gun debate is about

Jokes and opinions aren't mutually exclusive, but your entire argument revolves around the notion that they are in fact using jokes as opinions/arguments
The 1 example you did talk about actually shows this because you immediately go into about how the exchange is pointing out hypocrisy in being politically correct and the hypocrisy of that hypocrisy
Of course, your argument only stands if that is in fact Matt and/or Trey and/or the writers were doing, to be specific, if the writers were in fact saying that being politically correct is sometimes patronizing, which it doesn't
And the reason that isn't true is the episode didn't end with some sort of catharsis or resolution or mindset shift within some of the characters based upon the notion of being politically correct and it's effects, the whole episode you referenced wasn't actually about being politically correct

>I referred to episodes and actual quotes, you just spout more shit without any kind of grounding in something that happened in an episode.
I referred to an episode and an character arc point, and you disregarded half of what I brought up because it, evidence to the fact that south park is often not about introducing an argument as satire, couldn't be refuted in the circumstances of your argument

>As opposed to what actually happens in South Park, which is
> "This is stupid...BECAUSE of the following reasons, preachy monologue."
This actually didn't happen in the episode that ended this recent storyline

>>78325991
That only has to do with the principals opinion that it does or can hurt the disabled, which is a separate issue from whether Jimmy should publish the word 'retarded' in his newspaper.

Notice Jimmy never once said 'I and other disabled people are not hurt by this, therefore it's OK', he had a completely different reasoning for defending the first grader's right to free speech. His suggestion that PC Principal is uncomfortable around disabled people is merely his explanation for why PC Principal is so interested in censoring the word retarded, not that it should be censored or not.
>>78326038
If you are actually this stupid, I pity you. You need to actually provide an example of where swapping the characters around would make a difference. If I make a TV show where only people who make pastries argue that checkers is a fun game, that doesn't mean people who don't make pastries can't argue that checkers is a fun game

>>78323691
Humor is the most subjective. It only takes one person finding it funny to be funny.

>>78326179
The South Park guns thing is criticising the frequently spouted idea that everybody would be much safer if everyone had guns (Vince Vaughan was the last recognisable name I recall espousing this view) by escalating the absurdity of its depiction - not only is everyone safer, everyone is happier and healthier too, with guns now magically resolving conflicts peacefully, which is of course not what one would expect to happen in a world filled with guns. The idea that more guns = more safety is a big factor in the gun debate, especially surrounding the gun control controversy around mass shootings. So, it is satire.

While it's true that the particular episode I referenced began with PC only to target ads as a form of capitalistic sanitisation of reality - (offering unattainably perfect fantasies which deceive the viewer into buying products which don't actually help them realise the promise of the ads) - it doesn't change the fact that this new focus was itself satire.

And if you subtract "preachy monologue" from the equation - something that has happened frequently in countless other episodes (the Muhammad ones, Timmy becoming a rock star, anti-smoking activists etc) all of the jokes follow the formula of "this is funny because x."

It's funny that Randy thinks that the use of gendered pronouns automatically makes Sharon a transphobic bigot because Sharon's entire point was that PC people just use linguistic policing as an excuse to attack other people/ also funny because people have genders in real life, and the use of gendered pronouns has been a central part of all languages since forever.

>>78326496
The whole guns joke with the last episode could be about how absurdly counter-intuitive the idea is, not exactly satire or that the idea is incorrect.

It reminds of this study where schools which participated in an experiment where they left recess completely unsupervised by teachers/authority figures, and the result was a decrease in playground injuries and bullying.

>>78326220
>If you are actually this stupid, I pity you. You need to actually provide an example of where swapping the characters around would make a difference

Going back to your original point:

>If, in the hate crime episode, Token's dad actually agreed with hate crime legislation and some white character took the writers' anti-hate crime legislation position, it wouldn't have changed the argument. You're focusing too much on the people and not the idea itself.

And then this post:

>Perhaps it does to racists like yourself. I think they probably had Token's dad represent their position because they were worried about people calling them racist or whatever. Similar with Chef in the KKK episode.

If a white person had represented the writer's point of view, they would have been seen as racist, as observed above. Because a black person is seen to authorise their opinion, they are absolved of racism. It lends credibility and legitimacy to their position on hate crime legislation.

You're not a stupid man, you're just wrong.

>>78326821
No, no, no, no, no. It absolves them of being SEEN as racist. It doesn't make their position any more correct or incorrect to have a black character state it, just makes it easier for a certain kind of person to swallow.

>>78326623
satire: the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Guns are never going to resolve family disputes. I like the observation that they're making fun of how counter-intuitive the idea is - I'd say this applies to the gunshow, at least - but it also resolves achieves an almost utopian level of peace and prosperity. I'd argue that's using irony and exaggeration as above to criticize a political position, but I take your point.

Including the definition less to be a smart arse and more to use it as something people can refer to when making an argument.

>>78326496
>The South Park guns thing is criticising the frequently spouted idea that everybody would be much safer if everyone had guns
That's not necessarily true, it could be highlighting the opposite side and criticizing it. The notion of less guns = less chances to hurt people comes up at the same time, people aren't pulling guns out to protect themselves, it's to get other people to listen to them. Of course this is countered when the other person has a gun, leading to a deescalation of the situation where neither person can hurt anyone without getting hurt themselves, which not only shows that not having a gun can lead to harm but also shows that having a gun is a good thing--which is the main argument of the pro-gun party
But I don't actually believe that, I'm just showing you that you can take multiple view points from the same content. That goes back to my main point about self-righteous assholes who find arguments where there really aren't any

>this new focus was itself satire
It really wasn't satire because it wasn't used as a joke criticizing politically correctness, it was used to introduce the conspiracy behind politically correctness, which was ads are slowly killing out humans.

>all of the jokes follow the formula of "this is funny because x."
That's how all referential humor works, but just because you reference something doesn't mean you have to have a specific viewpoint
The kids being mistaken for ISIS when they dress up as ninjas isn't satirizing ISIS

>It's funny that Randy thinks that the use of gendered pronouns automatically makes Sharon a transphobic bigot
It's funny because Randy pointing that out has nothing to do with why Sharon is concerned
Sharon then goes on to do the things you said, but the reason it's funny is because Randy is still concerned with being PC while drunkenly avoiding taking responsibility for his actions

>>78326863

>It doesn't make their position any more correct or incorrect

There's no real way to measure or determine that though. You can't evaluate the correctness of an argument objectively. I don't think you understand that the original argument was never about who was right or not right, or what the correct position was, but how correct that position is seen to be, in light of the circumstances of its portrayal.

>>78326979
I was never arguing about how correct the position is seen to be, only about whether it is correct, because some people in here are saying Jimmy's argument wouldn't be equally valid if he were not disabled.

Strawman: The Series

>>78326942
>all of the jokes follow the formula of "this is funny because x."
>That's how all referential humor works, but just because you reference something doesn't mean you have to have a specific viewpoint

The kids being mistaken for ISIS when they dress up as ninjas isn't satirizing ISIS.

In fact, wasn't that whole episode about Officer Barbrady shooting kids? So in many ways, it was about satirising the hypocrisy of the liberal media in as much as they were against gun control and police using lethal force until there was something that they personally were threatened by, in which case they were just as trigger-happy, provided it fit with their agenda - ie, protecting Sodasopa and making it a safe space for the privileged.

You can have jokes that aren't political, and apolitical humour, but even that is grounded in common expectations, and the subversion of them - absurd humour being an obvious counterpoint to social norms or whatever. But when South Park's making a joke about politics, it is political, and it's satire.

>It's funny that Randy thinks that the use of gendered pronouns automatically makes Sharon a transphobic bigot
>It's funny because Randy pointing that out has nothing to do with why Sharon is concerned

No, that's completely wrong. What I actually said was:
It's funny that Randy thinks that the use of gendered pronouns automatically makes Sharon a transphobic bigot because Sharon's entire point was that PC people just use linguistic policing as an excuse to attack other people/

It literally has everything to do with what Sharon just said, since it's validating her comment. It's everything to do with why she's concerned, that's why it's funny. Randy missing the point is what's funny. He's not avoiding taking responsibility for his actions, he's completely blind to his actions altogether.

>>78327292
>So in many ways, it was about satirising the hypocrisy of the liberal media in as much as they were against gun control and police using lethal force
The episode was less about gun control and more about police brutality--that is against underprivileged and minority people. Police using lethal force and gun control isn't really what the episode was even about, especially because the notion of taking away guns wasn't really brought up. And as evidence to the episode being about police brutality against minorities, the only reason everything in the show happens is because Barbrady shoots a minority accidentally. And Barbrady gets kicked off the force because he shoots a minority again.

>It's everything to do with why she's concerned, that's why it's funny
But the comment she made about language policing wasn't the reason she confronted Randy. And all the while she brings up her complaints with Randy being drunk and not being responsible, Randy brings up nonsense facts about being politically correct
Sure, Sharon makes the point, but the whole exchange isn't made funny by her bringing up the fact that he keeps policing her language, it's made funny because Randy is ignoring her while drunkenly not listening to her criticism

>>78327145

>I was never arguing about how correct the position is seen to be, only about whether it is correct

Then you don't understand the entire point of the debate. You can't objectively measure the "correctness" of an argument or an opinion. If you were arguing that something was not more or less objectively correct depending on the speaker, that would be correct if we were discussing facts. We weren't.

Jimmy's opinion wouldn't be equally valid because he wouldn't be speaking from experience about being disabled. "I am disabled, and can verify from personal experience this word is not harmful". He himself is clearly demonstrated as being totally comfortable with the use of the word. If you're talking purely about the censorship argument, as opposed to whether retard is or is not a harmful word, it would still be less credible coming from a source that isn't disabled, because you can verify the integrity of the opinion if the opinionator is disabled. "I am disabled, and comfortable with the use of the word "retarded" to describe things, because I don't want to censor people." Like with the racism thing, if a white person argues against the hate speech legislation, their motives are questionable, and their opinion unqualified, because they aren't affected by the hate speech as it stands, and thus have no investment in the legislation except abstract philosophy.

Validity is the same thing as credibility when it comes to opinions and arguments. There's no hard and fast line between right and wrong, more like, strong and weak. What argument has more traction due to its origin? The speaker is always going to matter, because arguments aren't divorced from the people that give them, and arguments are always opinions. Thus, whoever gives an opinion about something matters, on account of how qualified they are to speak about something.

>>78324065
If everyone already feels superior to everyone else, then they don't have to keep talking. Which for people who need that feeling, is ideal for all concerned.

>>78322700
They are whatever pisses you off, if you happen to be in the room.

>>78327826
2+2=4

>>78327681
>The episode was less about gun control and more about police brutality - Police using lethal force and gun control isn't really what the episode was even about, especially because the notion of taking away guns wasn't really brought up

This is to what I was referring when I mentioned lethal force - police brutality. I mis-spoke. The gun control point I referenced purely because this season has a lot of cross-pollination between episodes. It's been a while since I watched the episode, but on your evidence alone, it seems like the point or satirical thrust of the episode is that Barbrady is removed from the force because the South Park government decry his actions as a result of prejudice and bigotry, something they have no time for anymore because of the uber-PC nature of Sodasopa and Shi Tpa Town- until the ninjas show up, in which case their automatic assumption is that they're from ISIS, purely because of the clothing they wear, and is thus a manifestation of the same bigotry. Ergo, PC exists in an artificial bubble, a hypocritical posture assumed by the privileged, until something that threatens there bubble happens - ISIS, the homeless - then their pretensions to tolerance and understanding immediately evaporate. In other words, PC people are only tolerant of minorities when they're out of sight, out of mind, and the PC people are in their ivory towers in gentrified districts.

Much as in the Safe Space episode, where the fascistic enforcement of tolerance and censorship of any kind of hateful sentiment masks an indulgence of the privileged who spend their entire time on social media, obssessing with appearance to the extent that actual social justice issues - like children starving in Africa - are taken as icons of an unrealistic body standard. Thus, the whole body positivity culture is revealed to be, rather than an extension of tolerance and social justice, a manifestation of narcissism and ignorance.

>>78327681
>>78328146
I mean, as a final extension of that before I go to bed - South Park is definitely satire even if it some of it's humour is derived from characters, situations, and fart jokes. Just because it's a comedy doesn't mean it doesn't have a message, or doesn't represent an opinion, point of view, or argument. You continue to act that because a) exists then b) cannot, as here :
>But the comment she made about language policing wasn't the reason she confronted Randy. Sure, Sharon makes the point, but the whole exchange isn't made funny by her bringing up the fact that he keeps policing her language, it's made funny because Randy is ignoring her while drunkenly not listening to her criticism

Yeah, part of that makes it funny. Part of what makes it funny is its satirical criticism of the blind hostility of PC culture. Your argument is impossible because you're arguing that South Park is only one thing - a dumb comedy with no message. I'm not arguing that it isn't dumb, or not a comedy, or that it doesn't have jokes that are just silly - but if even a 1/3 of the jokes are satirical, and the plot itself focusses on political issues in a way which presents an opinion on it - ManBearPig, the Muhammad in the bear costume episode - it's satirical.

>satire: the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Even by your own description - that it's a show that just pokes fun at topical issues - it's a fucking satire.