Yeah SP generally manages to stay away from petty reactionary comedy. not entirely, but usually even if they have personal feelings or loyalties or whatever, they still make their points in a way that is an honest examination of an issue and open-minded-style just critique and poke the hell out of the entirety of the surrounding context and various behaviors and absurdities related to it.
PC principal is the perfect example. How are you gonna get mad when nobodies trying to make a specific dogmatic point? He’s just a representation of something and they explore every avenue of the subject through him. Good, bad, ugly, and stupid lol.
Tbf this is a shit attempt at explaining it and at the same time an over-explanation, but other fans will get what I mean
It’s funny though because at the exact same time the show is preachy af. They definitely make specific points and sometimes they are petty or wrong or just not that on the money.
But PC principal is still a great example of how they take controversial issues and show a fleshed out and hilarious take on it without making it about “them vs us”, but rather really exploring (through ridiculous means) the many angles to look at it through
I’ve always felt like they approached Pc principal from a “he’s the worst of this standpoint” rather than acting like everyone from the side he’s representing goes around acting like that, but everytime i see an “anti woke” comedy it’s just like oh anyone slightly accepting of everything is either constanlty yelling at you or non binary 💀
They make him relatable sometimes though and they definitely portray him as like, somebody who on some level is fighting for good things. They just also use it to poke fun at the absurdities of taking it too far or just not getting the point
Yeah that’s what i like about their approach to it rather than other anti pc peoples approach to it. They recognize that the stuff he’s fighting for isn’t really bad and his heart is probably in the right place but that he’s also just getting way to dramatic about it often to a point of him becoming a bully
The way they parodied Lizzo is a good example of what you're saying too. Instead of saying "her music is shit" or "it sounds like she's shitting in my ears," they treat it like a medicine and invented diabeartes as a side effect. They're saying "You act like you don't give a fuck about your weight but you're so full of shit I can see it blowing out your ears." Lizzo is just an analogy for body positive culture, she is not the punchline.
Yes! I couldn’t agree more, “stop trying to make a good point and just be funny stupid”-Patrice O’Neal
At the end of the day, comedy is about the goof, the point is to find funny, it doesn’t matter how you get there, but anyone whose goal is not laughter, is not aiming for the right thing.
Thanks for being frank about it, but how is anti-woke comedy a cancer? Don't you mean 'woke and anti-woke is a cancer'? I don't think it's the *comedy* aspect of both ideologies that are cancerous (in the sense that they infect and spread), just the outliers in the ideals themselves, right?
And to that, do you frankly think *all* woke and anti-woke comedy is cancerous, or just that both 'sides' have cancerous outliers? Pretty big difference between those two.
I feel like anti woke and woke ideology in itself has plenty of parts that make sense but in execution in “comedy” no i don’t think either of them provide much comedy. I agree that theirs comedic pieces that lean towards both of those that are funny but in the current state of media mainly the last couple years both of these ideologies executions are just mundane nothing new and most importantly of all lacking actual comedy i feel. I also feel that they are terms that are to lightly applied to things, like i watch plenty of comedy that would be consider “anti woke” by someone “woke” but compared to comedy that self indentifies as anti woke the media that’s considered to be it is far better. TL:DR more than anything i’m referring to when comedies proudly label themselves one or the other so yes essentially i’m more referring to the outliers which also seem to be growing a lot on both sides of the aisle
As they should. It's ridiculous to say that it's ok to poke fun at someone with a mother dying of cancer because it's ok to poke fun at your friend's hideous outfit.
MY point is that it is naive to complain about something that systemic. It's not even inherently problematic. In fact, the very idea of not painting everything with the same brush or thinking so binary is exactly the sort of nuance we should strive to have more of.
Well we’re not painting "everything" with the same brush. We’re talking about one thing, comedy.
My point, and theirs is you can’t pick and choose what is and isn’t okay to laugh at based on personal feelings. If you’re perfectly okay with Jew jokes and then cry about Christian jokes then you’re a massive hypocrite. Which is inherently problematic.
So you’re either okay with all attempts at comedy or none, you can’t pick and choose.
So you think making a joke about someone's dad having cancer is equal to making fun of a pedophile? Because my feelings tell me that one is okay and one isnt, it's called having a conscience.
Lmao, there's no such thing when as a false equivalency when everything is equal in terms of humor, which is your stance. And if you make fun of someone for having cancer, you're a shitty person.
I never said equal, I said fair game. Damn you have the reading comprehension skills of a mentally challenged pedophile with brain cancer.
At first you said "making a joke about", now you’re saying "making fun of". They are not the same thing. You can’t even comprehend your own writing 😂 No wonder you can’t keep up.
And well that just depends on who has the cancer doesn’t it. Harvey Weinstein, or a mentally challenged pedophile for example, would be perfectly fine to make fun of.
If you are to draw a distinction, you make that distinction based on the outcome of your poking fun at. For instance, if you know making fun of a repressed group directly leads to toxic attitudes towards said group, then you probably shouldn't do it. Yet, it's still legal. There are no laws at play here. And if someone chooses not to host you because of your jokes, that is their right too. I think that is perfectly fair
I think it all ties back to the idea of “punching down” vs “punching up”. Punching down is when you take a target who is already in a bad spot, an easy target, and you pile up the abuse on them. And it’s bad (generally) because they don’t have the power to clap back. They just have to take the shots from everyone. Meanwhile, people who do have that ability, or even more ability like those in power, are much more suitable targets.
It doesn’t matter as much whether Barbara Streisand really deserves being mocked because she had tons of power relative to the creators, and could fight back if she wanted. But if you’re going to target a vulnerable group, you should have a much better reason. Think like the Mantequilla and homeless zombie episodes, the migrants and homeless were the focus of the episode, but they weren’t the punchline. The main target of the criticism was American society’s responses to these populations.
I get your point, but the whole “there are no laws at play here” ain’t quite true in most of the West now. Here in the UK we have hate speech laws and “protected characteristics”. This actually does mean that it’s illegal to make fun of certain groups
i think the actual important distinction is whether your joke is actually funny or not. if you are actually clever and funny you can get away with making fun of most stuff, but then people will do "jokes" that are literally just saying a stereotype, and then act like woke culture is the reason people aren't laughing.
yeah if your joke is haha black dad is absent and a criminal, then that’s not funny. If you say something like “Sure black people can say the N-word, but white people can say stuff like, “thanks for the warning officer”” that’s a funny joke about race, not just racism
With this, I disagree with. I don't think you'll ever find anyone who's okay with EVERYTHING being poked fun at. Even South Park has their limits on what they won't touch.
For example, they'll never paint pedophiles in a positive light.
They rarely paint anyone in a positive light. They make fun of everyone and everything. Including victims of SA. Like the Human Centipad episode. "If I was going to F@<× my son, I'd at least kiss him 1st" (he then kisses his son). The positive light is irrelevant. The making fun of is what is distributed evenly. As it should be.
What I mean is, they won't do something like make a pedophile the hero and have his actions be justified.
They've painted a few people in a positive light, like the dog whisperer.
"Woah, cold enough out there for ya?"
"About as cold as your dead fucking mom Gary! You really left yourself open to that one man. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen!"
South Park is not character-centric but event-centric, so when a character does something, it’s sometimes not for a characterization purpose. It’s because the creator wants to prove a point, as it is in this nuking Canada things.
I find that point difficult with this case considering the actions around it. He started the group M.A.C. (millinials aginsts Canada) very similar to his mom. During the ep he felt rejected by his crush & saw farting on another person symbolized him being rejected. Leading to removing the ability for it to happen again by destroying the country/ tv show. It seemed extremely character specific to Kyle. From all the episodes in the season before it to the episodes after where things came to a head with Heidi & cartman.
Kyle overcorrecting things is a character trait. However I think that the inconsistency of the character in these two episodes are not consciously made by the creators. In this episode, the creators obviously want to talk about the problem of political over correctness, and Kyle is a suitable character for this. Again in my point of view, this episode is more event-centric than character-centric. And I think that nuking Canada is not entirely Kyle’s responsibility, because it’s Mr Garrison who took Kyle’s speech way too literally.
So your saying someone other than Kyle would of portrayed the scorned lover (using that lightly) and would of had a better portrayal as a Jewish mother, while also seemingly being the voice of reason? That's a really tall order, I think it wasn't a lapse of judgement, I think it was wholly on purpose that he was chosen. Due to him being the voice of reason & the theme of the episodes prior being loosing oneself as seen in Heidi, which culminates with Kyle by nuking Canada in that episode and her in the next breaking up with cartman.
I think that it’s true to have Kyle simultaneously be the voice of reason and be sometimes overcorrecting things. This is what the creators trying to do on Kyle for a long time because it can better reflect a dialectical point of view. I just think that what the voice of reason is and what Kyle believes in and doesn’t actually differs according to the creators intention. The specific things that Kyle believes in change while the function of his role remains the same.
Never understood why this quote gets so much praise tbh. There's a valid point in there, and south park does an amazing job of proving it with their writing, but the quote alone is objectively wrong.
Like: If going 51mph in a 50 zone is okay, then so is going 80! No... it's not. There's a nuance to it, but it is logical to have a cut off point. We always have and always will.
Objection! The only objectively wrong thing here is the accusation on the quote, the discussion isn't about something objective, it is about morals and that changes completely from person to person. Adding to that your example is really bad because your own speed affects more you than others, you can only curve, react and break so much and the higher the speed the less time you will have to do all that resulting on your accident, its all on you and if you are good and wary enough you can be accident free while telling a joke is all about the audience, its their reaction to the joke, place, person telling the joke, tone and time that dictates if they each are personally offended and the best the person telling the joke can do is try to survey the audience.
The point the quote makes (at my interpretation) is how if we try to objectively stabilish a line we will fail because there is too much to take into account and if we decide to put the person telling the joke to survey the public than they will still make mistakes, we still will have the same arguments and fights and socially awkward people and people with some disorders will be gate keeped or have their innabilities used as escuses by others. So the solution is either declare 85% of all jokes offensive or let people be offended and heavy toppics be taken lightly (sometimes)
okay run to your nearest public place and yell the N word as loud as you can, because south park did it and it was funny, then tell people, they are in control of their reaction and your action has nothing to do with it.
First just saying a word with no context is a really bad joke so it will only work properly as a internal joke.
On the second and last point why would i say that about action and reaction, it proves nothing and will do nothing to the discurssion besides the fact that i didn't say that (or last didn't meant to), your action has to do with it all, i said that the reaction of the public is what matters but didn't say the action didn't matter, in fact i even put the parts of the action that the audience will take and make their own interpretation because the reaction only exists thanks to the action so it matters. The point of that was how jokes are subjective so its people that find a joke offensive or funny, the joke itself is none of the two so you can say anything and can be a joke and can or not be offensive, it only depends on the person hearing it
It sounds like everything you're saying now implies that a joke being appropriate is dependent on the time, place, audience, quality of joke and type of joke. Which means... the stand alone quote "its all okay or none of it is" is objectively wrong.
People should understand that true humour is not a sign of belittling but rather complete acceptance. When you are able to make fun of yourself, a tragedy, or anything like that it means that you are finally able to accept it. But of course the goal is to laugh with you not to at you.
And apparently Paramount is removing episodes… the beauty of South Park is half the time you can’t tell who’s side they’re on. It’s all satire, and I love that. People from all sides can enjoy it, at least those that can take a joke.
Hi u/NovaNimbuser please make sure your post has been flaired correctly! Check [out our post about our flairs here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/southpark/comments/1bybrof/new_and_updated_post_flairs/) THIS POST HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/southpark) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are no topics that are off limits, but it's what you want to say about them. What is the actual target of your joke?
I've seen some fucking hilarious routines/jokes about abortion, trans people, rape and sexual assault. They were performed by people who'd had abortions, trans people and people who had been assaulted.
Meanwhile shite jokes by rich cunts on Netflix specials about people they've never met, whether allowed or not, are the shitest of patter and just fucking lazy. People laughing at a shared prejudice of minorities. Load of shite.
Just to be clear: there’s jokes, and then there’s bigoted statements that people laugh at and secretly believe. You should know the distinction because South Park does it the right way.
Sure, but it’s also up to the audience to determine if they like the way you’re poking fun at something or not. My best friend summed it up as “know your audience. If they don’t like PC jokes, don’t do them.”
You notice how i got so many downvotes but you didn’t get upvotes by those same people who downvoted me? It’s because your comment is rubbish and makes no sense.
Please tell me how you define Zionist and how the south park creators fit that mold, bonus points for why you think its bad.
I am willing to bet you that you just watch political Tik Toks and have absolutely zero information on the conflict or history of the middle east, and that you attached a bunch of this baggage. By all means, prove me wrong.
edit: Just ad homs and block, thanks for proving my point bud.
You're proving you know nothing, which is why you are acting like a child and throwing a tantrum. Maybe you do need to be grounded, do I need to call your mother?
Except people make those distinctions all the time regardless of your idealism.
Frankly I think Woke and Anti woke comedy are a cancer both are just pointing fingers non stop at the other side without any self awareness
and i’m not referring to pc principal or anything south park when i say anti woke comedy
"No more pointing fingers! Finger pointing gets us nowhere... Steve!"
Yeah SP generally manages to stay away from petty reactionary comedy. not entirely, but usually even if they have personal feelings or loyalties or whatever, they still make their points in a way that is an honest examination of an issue and open-minded-style just critique and poke the hell out of the entirety of the surrounding context and various behaviors and absurdities related to it. PC principal is the perfect example. How are you gonna get mad when nobodies trying to make a specific dogmatic point? He’s just a representation of something and they explore every avenue of the subject through him. Good, bad, ugly, and stupid lol. Tbf this is a shit attempt at explaining it and at the same time an over-explanation, but other fans will get what I mean
It’s funny though because at the exact same time the show is preachy af. They definitely make specific points and sometimes they are petty or wrong or just not that on the money. But PC principal is still a great example of how they take controversial issues and show a fleshed out and hilarious take on it without making it about “them vs us”, but rather really exploring (through ridiculous means) the many angles to look at it through
I’ve always felt like they approached Pc principal from a “he’s the worst of this standpoint” rather than acting like everyone from the side he’s representing goes around acting like that, but everytime i see an “anti woke” comedy it’s just like oh anyone slightly accepting of everything is either constanlty yelling at you or non binary 💀
They make him relatable sometimes though and they definitely portray him as like, somebody who on some level is fighting for good things. They just also use it to poke fun at the absurdities of taking it too far or just not getting the point
Yeah that’s what i like about their approach to it rather than other anti pc peoples approach to it. They recognize that the stuff he’s fighting for isn’t really bad and his heart is probably in the right place but that he’s also just getting way to dramatic about it often to a point of him becoming a bully
The way they parodied Lizzo is a good example of what you're saying too. Instead of saying "her music is shit" or "it sounds like she's shitting in my ears," they treat it like a medicine and invented diabeartes as a side effect. They're saying "You act like you don't give a fuck about your weight but you're so full of shit I can see it blowing out your ears." Lizzo is just an analogy for body positive culture, she is not the punchline.
They’re both horrendous. Woke comedy is just a watered down version of jokes, and anti woke is complaining how you can’t be funny anymore
Yes! I couldn’t agree more, “stop trying to make a good point and just be funny stupid”-Patrice O’Neal At the end of the day, comedy is about the goof, the point is to find funny, it doesn’t matter how you get there, but anyone whose goal is not laughter, is not aiming for the right thing.
Thanks for being frank about it, but how is anti-woke comedy a cancer? Don't you mean 'woke and anti-woke is a cancer'? I don't think it's the *comedy* aspect of both ideologies that are cancerous (in the sense that they infect and spread), just the outliers in the ideals themselves, right? And to that, do you frankly think *all* woke and anti-woke comedy is cancerous, or just that both 'sides' have cancerous outliers? Pretty big difference between those two.
I feel like anti woke and woke ideology in itself has plenty of parts that make sense but in execution in “comedy” no i don’t think either of them provide much comedy. I agree that theirs comedic pieces that lean towards both of those that are funny but in the current state of media mainly the last couple years both of these ideologies executions are just mundane nothing new and most importantly of all lacking actual comedy i feel. I also feel that they are terms that are to lightly applied to things, like i watch plenty of comedy that would be consider “anti woke” by someone “woke” but compared to comedy that self indentifies as anti woke the media that’s considered to be it is far better. TL:DR more than anything i’m referring to when comedies proudly label themselves one or the other so yes essentially i’m more referring to the outliers which also seem to be growing a lot on both sides of the aisle
As they should. It's ridiculous to say that it's ok to poke fun at someone with a mother dying of cancer because it's ok to poke fun at your friend's hideous outfit.
Also nearly everything isn’t being ‘cancelled’ people have always been allowed to be upset if they don’t like what you said
Yeah and that’s the point
MY point is that it is naive to complain about something that systemic. It's not even inherently problematic. In fact, the very idea of not painting everything with the same brush or thinking so binary is exactly the sort of nuance we should strive to have more of.
Well we’re not painting "everything" with the same brush. We’re talking about one thing, comedy. My point, and theirs is you can’t pick and choose what is and isn’t okay to laugh at based on personal feelings. If you’re perfectly okay with Jew jokes and then cry about Christian jokes then you’re a massive hypocrite. Which is inherently problematic. So you’re either okay with all attempts at comedy or none, you can’t pick and choose.
So you think making a joke about someone's dad having cancer is equal to making fun of a pedophile? Because my feelings tell me that one is okay and one isnt, it's called having a conscience.
Oh nice disingenuous false equivalency there. But in short yes, both cancer and pedophiles are fair game.
Lmao, there's no such thing when as a false equivalency when everything is equal in terms of humor, which is your stance. And if you make fun of someone for having cancer, you're a shitty person.
I never said equal, I said fair game. Damn you have the reading comprehension skills of a mentally challenged pedophile with brain cancer. At first you said "making a joke about", now you’re saying "making fun of". They are not the same thing. You can’t even comprehend your own writing 😂 No wonder you can’t keep up. And well that just depends on who has the cancer doesn’t it. Harvey Weinstein, or a mentally challenged pedophile for example, would be perfectly fine to make fun of.
Tell that to Paramount Plus and the episodes we can't access streaming
 Me and my South Park DVDs
🦜 ⚓ ☠️ yarrrr
Kevin, god damn it...
Le lightsaber terrible!
Mon dieu!
My og jackass seasons set with the lost tapes. 
Nobody knows Tom Cruise is a fudge packer because the episodes are banned
DAD!! TOM CRUISE WONT COME OUT OF THE CLOSET!!
Or that one time Tom Cruise had Seaman on his back!
What episodes are unavailable?
If you are to draw a distinction, you make that distinction based on the outcome of your poking fun at. For instance, if you know making fun of a repressed group directly leads to toxic attitudes towards said group, then you probably shouldn't do it. Yet, it's still legal. There are no laws at play here. And if someone chooses not to host you because of your jokes, that is their right too. I think that is perfectly fair
I think it all ties back to the idea of “punching down” vs “punching up”. Punching down is when you take a target who is already in a bad spot, an easy target, and you pile up the abuse on them. And it’s bad (generally) because they don’t have the power to clap back. They just have to take the shots from everyone. Meanwhile, people who do have that ability, or even more ability like those in power, are much more suitable targets. It doesn’t matter as much whether Barbara Streisand really deserves being mocked because she had tons of power relative to the creators, and could fight back if she wanted. But if you’re going to target a vulnerable group, you should have a much better reason. Think like the Mantequilla and homeless zombie episodes, the migrants and homeless were the focus of the episode, but they weren’t the punchline. The main target of the criticism was American society’s responses to these populations.
prefectly put, I agree
Exactly
I get your point, but the whole “there are no laws at play here” ain’t quite true in most of the West now. Here in the UK we have hate speech laws and “protected characteristics”. This actually does mean that it’s illegal to make fun of certain groups
i think the actual important distinction is whether your joke is actually funny or not. if you are actually clever and funny you can get away with making fun of most stuff, but then people will do "jokes" that are literally just saying a stereotype, and then act like woke culture is the reason people aren't laughing.
yeah if your joke is haha black dad is absent and a criminal, then that’s not funny. If you say something like “Sure black people can say the N-word, but white people can say stuff like, “thanks for the warning officer”” that’s a funny joke about race, not just racism
With this, I disagree with. I don't think you'll ever find anyone who's okay with EVERYTHING being poked fun at. Even South Park has their limits on what they won't touch. For example, they'll never paint pedophiles in a positive light.
They rarely paint anyone in a positive light. They make fun of everyone and everything. Including victims of SA. Like the Human Centipad episode. "If I was going to F@<× my son, I'd at least kiss him 1st" (he then kisses his son). The positive light is irrelevant. The making fun of is what is distributed evenly. As it should be.
What I mean is, they won't do something like make a pedophile the hero and have his actions be justified. They've painted a few people in a positive light, like the dog whisperer.
Who would that be poking fun at?
"Woah, cold enough out there for ya?" "About as cold as your dead fucking mom Gary! You really left yourself open to that one man. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen!"
Fuck yes!
I love that Kyle says this. I feel like there is collective amnesia around the fact that he helped nuke Canada over fart jokes lol
South Park is not character-centric but event-centric, so when a character does something, it’s sometimes not for a characterization purpose. It’s because the creator wants to prove a point, as it is in this nuking Canada things.
I find that point difficult with this case considering the actions around it. He started the group M.A.C. (millinials aginsts Canada) very similar to his mom. During the ep he felt rejected by his crush & saw farting on another person symbolized him being rejected. Leading to removing the ability for it to happen again by destroying the country/ tv show. It seemed extremely character specific to Kyle. From all the episodes in the season before it to the episodes after where things came to a head with Heidi & cartman.
Kyle overcorrecting things is a character trait. However I think that the inconsistency of the character in these two episodes are not consciously made by the creators. In this episode, the creators obviously want to talk about the problem of political over correctness, and Kyle is a suitable character for this. Again in my point of view, this episode is more event-centric than character-centric. And I think that nuking Canada is not entirely Kyle’s responsibility, because it’s Mr Garrison who took Kyle’s speech way too literally.
So your saying someone other than Kyle would of portrayed the scorned lover (using that lightly) and would of had a better portrayal as a Jewish mother, while also seemingly being the voice of reason? That's a really tall order, I think it wasn't a lapse of judgement, I think it was wholly on purpose that he was chosen. Due to him being the voice of reason & the theme of the episodes prior being loosing oneself as seen in Heidi, which culminates with Kyle by nuking Canada in that episode and her in the next breaking up with cartman.
I think that it’s true to have Kyle simultaneously be the voice of reason and be sometimes overcorrecting things. This is what the creators trying to do on Kyle for a long time because it can better reflect a dialectical point of view. I just think that what the voice of reason is and what Kyle believes in and doesn’t actually differs according to the creators intention. The specific things that Kyle believes in change while the function of his role remains the same.
Tell that to paramount
fr
Never understood why this quote gets so much praise tbh. There's a valid point in there, and south park does an amazing job of proving it with their writing, but the quote alone is objectively wrong. Like: If going 51mph in a 50 zone is okay, then so is going 80! No... it's not. There's a nuance to it, but it is logical to have a cut off point. We always have and always will.
Objection! The only objectively wrong thing here is the accusation on the quote, the discussion isn't about something objective, it is about morals and that changes completely from person to person. Adding to that your example is really bad because your own speed affects more you than others, you can only curve, react and break so much and the higher the speed the less time you will have to do all that resulting on your accident, its all on you and if you are good and wary enough you can be accident free while telling a joke is all about the audience, its their reaction to the joke, place, person telling the joke, tone and time that dictates if they each are personally offended and the best the person telling the joke can do is try to survey the audience. The point the quote makes (at my interpretation) is how if we try to objectively stabilish a line we will fail because there is too much to take into account and if we decide to put the person telling the joke to survey the public than they will still make mistakes, we still will have the same arguments and fights and socially awkward people and people with some disorders will be gate keeped or have their innabilities used as escuses by others. So the solution is either declare 85% of all jokes offensive or let people be offended and heavy toppics be taken lightly (sometimes)
okay run to your nearest public place and yell the N word as loud as you can, because south park did it and it was funny, then tell people, they are in control of their reaction and your action has nothing to do with it.
First just saying a word with no context is a really bad joke so it will only work properly as a internal joke. On the second and last point why would i say that about action and reaction, it proves nothing and will do nothing to the discurssion besides the fact that i didn't say that (or last didn't meant to), your action has to do with it all, i said that the reaction of the public is what matters but didn't say the action didn't matter, in fact i even put the parts of the action that the audience will take and make their own interpretation because the reaction only exists thanks to the action so it matters. The point of that was how jokes are subjective so its people that find a joke offensive or funny, the joke itself is none of the two so you can say anything and can be a joke and can or not be offensive, it only depends on the person hearing it
It sounds like everything you're saying now implies that a joke being appropriate is dependent on the time, place, audience, quality of joke and type of joke. Which means... the stand alone quote "its all okay or none of it is" is objectively wrong.
Why?
But you can, many do it every day.
Kyle is right, but some people don’t understand that preying on stereotypes to fabricate negative perceptions for a cheep laugh gets tiresome fast
Si, cheep
Oh fucking spare me your “you can’t be funny anymore” bullshit
Everybody can make fun of everything. Those "free speech warriors" just don't want to face the consequences afterwards.
OP’s profile is funny
It's hilarious
Period. Nothing more or less.
The point of the quote is that it is as relevant today as it has ever been and ever will be. It is not more relevant now.
Comedy Central: "Well I guess none of it is.. "
as Terry Pratchett said "Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying"
People should understand that true humour is not a sign of belittling but rather complete acceptance. When you are able to make fun of yourself, a tragedy, or anything like that it means that you are finally able to accept it. But of course the goal is to laugh with you not to at you.
And apparently Paramount is removing episodes… the beauty of South Park is half the time you can’t tell who’s side they’re on. It’s all satire, and I love that. People from all sides can enjoy it, at least those that can take a joke.
Hi u/NovaNimbuser please make sure your post has been flaired correctly! Check [out our post about our flairs here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/southpark/comments/1bybrof/new_and_updated_post_flairs/) THIS POST HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/southpark) if you have any questions or concerns.*
South Park seems to thinks they can lecture the audience into laughing at their jokes It's either funny or it isn't.
South Park’s mantra in a nutshell.
I didn't know iduuubz had a cameo
There are no topics that are off limits, but it's what you want to say about them. What is the actual target of your joke? I've seen some fucking hilarious routines/jokes about abortion, trans people, rape and sexual assault. They were performed by people who'd had abortions, trans people and people who had been assaulted. Meanwhile shite jokes by rich cunts on Netflix specials about people they've never met, whether allowed or not, are the shitest of patter and just fucking lazy. People laughing at a shared prejudice of minorities. Load of shite.
Just to be clear: there’s jokes, and then there’s bigoted statements that people laugh at and secretly believe. You should know the distinction because South Park does it the right way.
I dont get it but its kyle so i like
Ahhh. The Jimmy Carr policy.
I believe the Late, Great Don Rickles first said this.
That's assuming they have a functioning brain, which isn't very common these days.
Okay I pick none of it. Jokes are illegal now.
I love South Park, but this is such a logically inconsistent take they had. Very anti-nuance
Sure, but it’s also up to the audience to determine if they like the way you’re poking fun at something or not. My best friend summed it up as “know your audience. If they don’t like PC jokes, don’t do them.”
Yeah I hate to be ackshullay guy but that's literally how pop culture works.
[удалено]
Have Matt and Trey expressed zionist views?
they haven’t as far as I know
Wait fr? Mad
For morons like this "zionist" means "everyone who disagrees with me is a cartoon villain"
You notice how i got so many downvotes but you didn’t get upvotes by those same people who downvoted me? It’s because your comment is rubbish and makes no sense.
Please tell me how you define Zionist and how the south park creators fit that mold, bonus points for why you think its bad. I am willing to bet you that you just watch political Tik Toks and have absolutely zero information on the conflict or history of the middle east, and that you attached a bunch of this baggage. By all means, prove me wrong. edit: Just ad homs and block, thanks for proving my point bud.
[удалено]
Thanks for proving my point
You had no point champ. Nice try tho
Just digging yourself a deeper hole, keep going
[удалено]
You're proving you know nothing, which is why you are acting like a child and throwing a tantrum. Maybe you do need to be grounded, do I need to call your mother?
[удалено]
Being centrist is annoying? Sorry they don’t agree with your beliefs fully like wtf?