|
I completely accept that online harassment is rampant and people need to find ways to avoid it, cope and manage. Online harassment is destroying lives, causing depression and suicide. I don't think anyone is going to argue to the contrary.
That's not the issue South Park are trying to make light of. Unless you're going to criticise them for going after every single other minority in an exaggerated fashion I don't think it's fair to call this critique absurd. The problem is it's very hard to educate an audience about the fringe elements and extreme examples of the movements they're trying to parody.
The episode uses the fat example because it's the easiest one to use. I'm not defending Matt and Trey here, but that's the reality. South Park has many different demographics and they need to use examples that can resonate with as many audiences as possible, although I can see this could cause more harm than good in behaviour and attitudes throughout the typical audience.
That aside, I thought the episode was more about critiquing special snowflakes that can't accept any worldview except their own. People that go to university and have a safezone where no dissenting opinions are heard. No critical analysis. They wear pyjamas, have nap time and play in a ball pit.
We have university professors and lecturers being berated for showing material that "triggers" people. It's becoming increasingly difficult to have an honest and open conversation about reality and that's a continuing theme throughout the entire season. The entire reason behind PCPrincipal.
We have feminists and SJW's arguing all men are rapists. It's impossible for people of colour to be racist. Consensual sex is rape if you regret it after the act. It's impossible for men to be raped. Morbidly obese people looking up to Tess Holliday as an inspirational role model who is redefining beauty. Fat is healthy. Gender pronouns, preferred pronounds etcetera. Biological sex doesn't exist. Medical professionals don't know how to diagnose me, because I learnt about my PTSD and bipolar on the internet.
These are all themes pervasive in the extreme elements of the SJW community. It's almost all heard, created and disseminated via social media. I thought that was the target of this episode, not victims of online harassment. Maybe I give Matt and Trey too much credit. I don't think South Park has done a particularly good job so far this season critically dissecting these themes, but it's a clear goal for them to do so.
|
United States42820 Posts
Those were pretty much all straw men from a circle jerking MRA echo chamber. Like consensual sex is rape if you regret it after the act and it's impossible for men to be raped? Where are you getting that from because I'm pretty SJW and I disagree with a good half of what you wrote (and think you don't understand the other half and would probably agree with it if you had it explained to you in a form other than a reddit meme).
|
If you're offended by the episode you're the target of it, an exemplar of the overly sensitive PC culture. Don't worry, South Park is an equal opportunity offender and will go back to slamming the right again sooner or later like in "Cissy" and "Where My Country Gone?"
|
United States42820 Posts
I'm not offended, I thought it was dumb as hell because it spent forever attacking a straw man. I don't disagree that the straw man is dumb, I just don't think it's smart to spend 20 minutes explaining why straw is dumb.
There's a little more to satire than this.
|
I'm not sure where your attacks are coming from, I thought we were having a reasonable discussion.
There was a recent case where a college girl had consensual sex twice, regretted it later and reported it as sexual assault, and got him expelled. This is reality, not a strawman. Feel free to read the most recent court application**.
https://www.thefire.org/opinion-in-doe-v-washington-and-lee-university-august-5-2015/
As for the other points, each and every one I've seen on numerous occasions parroted by extreme SJW's. Tumblr is one hell of a place. I understand these extreme views are not representative of the majority, and I don't seek to associate the fringe with the movement at large.
I'd recommend you stop trying to assert intellectual dominance in a public forum. It's unfortunate for a moderator to exude such blatant narcissism.
|
United States42820 Posts
Is my mod status triggering you?
I also thought we were having a reasonable discussion, albeit with you misunderstanding feminism and me educating, but you seem to want to argue.
|
(and think you don't understand the other half and would probably agree with it if you had it explained to you in a form other than a reddit meme).
Is my mod status triggering you?
This is what I object to. This is not how you have a reasonable discussion. Someone of your intelligence should understand that.
|
United States42820 Posts
Sorry, that was rude. I've just been around this track a few too many times and heard all this before.
|
I'm sure you have.
As far as I can see, believing in social justice causes and arguing these messages while being associated with the lunatic fringe dwellers would be as tiresome as well-integrated Muslims following their faith in society and being associated with terrorism.
The issue is that going after the extreme elements of either minority often has the effect of denigrating the majority.
|
United States42820 Posts
Take trigger warnings. Triggers exist and they're pretty unpleasant to experience. I think it's reasonable for someone with a reasonable suspicion that he may trigger someone to announce it ahead of time. Doesn't mean he won't then do it, nor that he doesn't have the right to do it, or that he should censor himself. It's simply being aware that what is fine for you isn't fine for everyone and generally being considerate because of that. And that's literally all it is.
Take the example of it being 4th of July and you know your neighbour is a veteran. Knock on his door and say, "hey, I plan to set off a bunch of fireworks, that fine with you?". If he says no you still have your right to be an asshole and do it anyway, nobody is trying to censor you, just trying to make you aware that other people have shit going on that is different to the shit you have going on.
That seems 110% reasonable to me. If the guy has no idea that what he's doing is triggering because he's an idiot or the trigger is really obscure then I don't think any blame should be ascribed and I think the person being triggered has a responsibility to speak up and, if necessary, remove themselves from a situation they can't handle. I'm firmly in the "Cartman needs to get off the internet rather than change the internet" camp when it comes to triggering because you're aware of your own needs and ultimately responsible for them.
PC Principle made the issues of the special snowflakes Butter's issue against his will and demanded entirely unreasonable accommodations that everyone could agree were absurd. You might as well critique MRAs by pointing out Hitler was a man. Nobody will disagree that Hitler was a man and few will disagree that Hitler was pretty bad but the punch won't land because it has nothing to do with the desired subject. All that will happen if you attempt to prove MRAs are bad because Hitler was a man is that everyone who hears you will think "wow, that was a really dumb thing to say". That was my feeling watching this episode, just "wow, this was a really dumb episode, I don't disagree that Hitler was bad but I just don't see what it has to do with anything".
|
United States42820 Posts
Or preferred pronouns, again totally reasonable. Imagine you get unlucky and have a trans kid. There's like a 50% chance that at some point he or she will try to kill themselves because being trans is really hard. When you think about it like that it's probably not so difficult to, if someone tells you that they prefer to be addressed by male pronouns, just use the male pronouns. Even if deep down you don't really get what it means to be trans. It's okay to not get it, if you're cis it's something you'll never really understand. They're telling you that they prefer male pronouns and they pretty much won the lottery of shitty disorders to have and you can give them this thing and it doesn't cost you anything.
If you meet a stranger I don't think you should ask them which pronoun they prefer. If you get it wrong then the person should correct you and you should try to remember in future. And if you refuse to use the pronoun they prefer then I don't think you should be shot or censored or anything else, I just think it's a really dickish thing to do.
Ultimately all these things basically come down to "There is a lot of weird shit that people experience that society, built predominantly around the needs of white men, isn't really equipped to deal with. Please be aware of shit outside your bubble and try to be considerate of it". I mean hell, this is why I don't call people niggers. Being called a nigger wouldn't bother me in the slightest but I've been told that calling people nigger is a pretty nasty thing to do so I don't do it because of my general "try not to be a total asshole all the time" policy. Even if I don't get why the word is so harmful and even though I maintain the legal right to say it.
|
On October 24 2015 10:44 KwarK wrote:
Take trigger warnings. Triggers exist and they're pretty unpleasant to experience. I think it's reasonable for someone with a reasonable suspicion that he may trigger someone to announce it ahead of time. Doesn't mean he won't then do it, nor that he doesn't have the right to do it, or that he should censor himself. It's simply being aware that what is fine for you isn't fine for everyone and generally being considerate because of that. And that's literally all it is.
Take the example of it being 4th of July and you know your neighbour is a veteran. Knock on his door and say, "hey, I plan to set off a bunch of fireworks, that fine with you?". If he says no you still have your right to be an asshole and do it anyway, nobody is trying to censor you, just trying to make you aware that other people have shit going on that is different to the shit you have going on.
There's a pretty big difference between a Veteran having PTSD triggered from real traumatic events, or survivors of sexual assault/family violence being triggered by descriptions of said events, and special snowflakes co-opting the term for the reception of any criticism and diluting the seriousness of triggers. Munchhausen eat your heart out.
On October 24 2015 10:44 KwarK wrote:That seems 110% reasonable to me. If the guy has no idea that what he's doing is triggering because he's an idiot or the trigger is really obscure then I don't think any blame should be ascribed and I think the person being triggered has a responsibility to speak up and, if necessary, remove themselves from a situation they can't handle. I'm firmly in the "Cartman needs to get off the internet rather than change the internet" camp when it comes to triggering because you're aware of your own needs and ultimately responsible for them.
This argument is something I get behind. The problem is that in reality, a lot of people don't accept this line of reasoning, which is a core aspect of the episode's parody.
On October 24 2015 10:44 KwarK wrote:
PC Principle made the issues of the special snowflakes Butter's issue against his will and demanded entirely unreasonable accommodations that everyone could agree were absurd. You might as well critique MRAs by pointing out Hitler was a man. Nobody will disagree that Hitler was a man and few will disagree that Hitler was pretty bad but the punch won't land because it has nothing to do with the desired subject. All that will happen if you attempt to prove MRAs are bad because Hitler was a man is that everyone who hears you will think "wow, that was a really dumb thing to say". That was my feeling watching this episode, just "wow, this was a really dumb episode, I don't disagree that Hitler was bad but I just don't see what it has to do with anything".
Agreed. It goes back to the point where I understand what Matt and Trey are trying to achieve and the goals they have to lampoon these issues this season, but they're not doing a particularly good job. They're missing the mark and the dissection of issues is sorely missing the subtlety of South Park of old.
|
United States42820 Posts
I feel like we mostly agree then. Sorry for treating you like you were stupider than you are.
|
On October 24 2015 11:08 KwarK wrote:
I feel like we mostly agree then. Sorry for treating you like you were stupider than you are.
Got a good chuckle out of this, you'll keep mate.
|
I really liked this episode peopel being so easily offended are the worst kind in my opinion.
Blaming society for it is also a very unhealthy action.
Also wanting to protect yourself and others from reality is probably the worst kind of stupid.
sport on
also:
Imagine you get unlucky and have a trans kid
i think you should rephrase that.
|
On October 24 2015 11:51 Chilling5pr33 wrote:I really liked this episode peopel being so easily offended are the worst kind in my opinion. Blaming society for it is also a very unhealthy action. Also wanting to protect yourself and others from reality is probably the worst kind of stupid. sport on also: i think you should rephrase that.
It might not be phrased tactfully but I doubt trans people feel lucky to have gender dysphoria.
|
United States42820 Posts
On October 24 2015 11:51 Chilling5pr33 wrote:I really liked this episode peopel being so easily offended are the worst kind in my opinion. Blaming society for it is also a very unhealthy action. Also wanting to protect yourself and others from reality is probably the worst kind of stupid. sport on also: i think you should rephrase that.
trans people aren't any worse as people but it's a fucking brutal thing to have. Hell, I also hope my kids aren't gay, for their sake. There's nothing wrong with wanting your kid to be born with a good hand.
|
Sadly, gamergate folks and other types of assholes will use this episode as some kind of argument for their cause...
I mean, I kinda get what they were trying to do with this episode, but the people I see in the real world asking for safe spaces and speaking against bullying and harrasing online are not celebrities who can just hire some assistant to make it all go away. It's people who might receive 20 rape threats a day, or get harrased to the point they need to change their home adress. We have laws in the real world against this kind of thing... should we get rid of those too?
Also, the "if you don't like it, get off the internet" argument doesn't hold when you realize the internet is one of the main ways in which we communicate with each other... you need it to get jobs, you need it to keep in touch with family, hell, depending in what part of the world you live, you even need twitter to know if there's a fucking battle going on near your highschool.
|
|
|
On October 24 2015 13:01 Painmaker wrote:
Sadly, gamergate folks and other types of assholes will use this episode as some kind of argument for their cause...
I mean, I kinda get what they were trying to do with this episode, but the people I see in the real world asking for safe spaces and speaking against bullying and harrasing online are not celebrities who can just hire some assistant to make it all go away. It's people who might receive 20 rape threats a day, or get harrased to the point they need to change their home adress. We have laws in the real world against this kind of thing... should we get rid of those too?
Also, the "if you don't like it, get off the internet" argument doesn't hold when you realize the internet is one of the main ways in which we communicate with each other... you need it to get jobs, you need it to keep in touch with family, hell, depending in what part of the world you live, you even need twitter to know if there's a fucking battle going on near your highschool.
Nobody is actually this thick, right?...............right ?
Goddamnit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
