On November 16 2016 16:44 Laurens wrote: Dude you're going insane lol.
Making fun of Yelp/Wholefoods/Safe space/PC/the weird asian drawing thing/... is just trademark south park. It's not the end of society XD
It's not that they're doing those things, but that if you live in the bubble of a Trump supporter, then you wonder why people are voting for Hillary. And as real as that divide exists, there's a divide on various social issues across America, and even throughout the world. For some people this divide even extends into real-world issues such as climate change and economics. With the rise of the internet, the clash between this divide is increasing and Mr Garrison represent that very well.
Looking at the US politics thread, it doesn't seem like people are anywhere close to breaking out of their bubbles. Equating it to the end of society maybe isn't sufficiently accurate in terms of scope, but it is astonishing to me how far this divide seems to stretch. World War 3 has been part of the discussion before in various circumstances, so apparently it's not off the table in that regard.
If people want to heal the divide, stop talking through identity politics. It's that simple. Those that can only talk about identity politics further the divide because they see the entire world through the lens of race and gender. Amazingly, they don't know that they contribute to making things worse, not better. What do they honestly think happens to people when you bring race and gender to the forefront of every single discussion you have?
The fact that almost every single progressive position is hypocritical in the extreme alone makes it dangerous. That's not living in a bubble, that's actual insanity. And normal people want to distance themselves from that kind of insanity. There are more male engineers than female engineers, thus sexism. It's not an honest way to talk, and people get sick of dishonesty really fast.
One of the most progressive countries on earth (Norway) has 90% male engineers roughly and 90% female nurses. Progressives look at this and say, 'there are no difference between the sexes, we are all grey clay to be molded through society. Thus, sexism MUST be at play and anyone arguing against me is a sexist.' It's a pretty extreme position. So hopefully some liberals will talk some sense into them but they won't. They won't disavow their crazed voting block. Sad, really.
If they ever do disavow progressives.. the divide will heal over time.
On November 16 2016 16:44 Laurens wrote: Dude you're going insane lol.
Making fun of Yelp/Wholefoods/Safe space/PC/the weird asian drawing thing/... is just trademark south park. It's not the end of society XD
It's not that they're doing those things, but that if you live in the bubble of a Trump supporter, then you wonder why people are voting for Hillary. And as real as that divide exists, there's a divide on various social issues across America, and even throughout the world. For some people this divide even extends into real-world issues such as climate change and economics. With the rise of the internet, the clash between this divide is increasing and Mr Garrison represent that very well.
Looking at the US politics thread, it doesn't seem like people are anywhere close to breaking out of their bubbles. Equating it to the end of society maybe isn't sufficiently accurate in terms of scope, but it is astonishing to me how far this divide seems to stretch. World War 3 has been part of the discussion before in various circumstances, so apparently it's not off the table in that regard.
On November 16 2016 16:44 Laurens wrote: Dude you're going insane lol.
Making fun of Yelp/Wholefoods/Safe space/PC/the weird asian drawing thing/... is just trademark south park. It's not the end of society XD
It's not that they're doing those things, but that if you live in the bubble of a Trump supporter, then you wonder why people are voting for Hillary. And as real as that divide exists, there's a divide on various social issues across America, and even throughout the world. For some people this divide even extends into real-world issues such as climate change and economics. With the rise of the internet, the clash between this divide is increasing and Mr Garrison represent that very well.
Looking at the US politics thread, it doesn't seem like people are anywhere close to breaking out of their bubbles. Equating it to the end of society maybe isn't sufficiently accurate in terms of scope, but it is astonishing to me how far this divide seems to stretch. World War 3 has been part of the discussion before in various circumstances, so apparently it's not off the table in that regard.
The irony in this post is pretty hilarious lol.
You mean how I live in my own bubble? Yeah. Whoop de doo. Everyone does, always will one way or another.
I'm just trying to share the same sentiment that the lady in that video was sharing. It's a worrying prospect to be so out of touch with a large enough group of people that could vote Trump into the Whitehouse. It seemed entirely out of the question from the start of the race, and that belief was fuelled by a standpoint based on my own opinions and values, as well as the things I heard from the media. The latter of which were apparently dead wrong regarding his chances, while the former are apparently not as widespread as I would have expected.
To put in South Park terms: before all of this, I dismissed the Mr Garrison point of view almost entirely, but now I can no longer do this. And the way people are still railing against Garrison with calls of racism and so on instead of looking at the phenomenon in the way I described above makes me believe people are either unwilling or incapable of making this same adjustment. It seems to me if this (which essentially boils down to name-calling at this point) continues over time, greater separation will occur as a result. But now we're getting into the philosophical doomsday scenarios again which are off-putting to people.
On November 17 2016 10:27 a_flayer wrote: To put in South Park terms: before all of this, I dismissed the Mr Garrison point of view almost entirely, but now I can no longer do this. And the way people are still railing against Garrison with calls of racism and so on instead of looking at in the way I described above makes me believe people are either unwilling or incapable of making this same adjustment. It seems to me if this (which essentially boils down to name-calling at this point) continues over time, greater separation will occur as a result. But now we're getting into the philosophical doomsday scenarios again which are off-putting to people.
Note, I'm not caught up with South Park but I'm assuming Garrison is a metaphor for Trump here. So I'm taking what you're saying is that you dismissed Trumps talking points but you no longer can because he won. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting, but I've seen a general trend towards this stance since the election so I'll go ahead and post anyway.
This strikes me as a disingenuous approach and I hope that people who take it think about why this is necessary for them. Trumps talking point's haven't changed very much at all. Crack down on illegal immigration, restrictions on Muslim immigration, protectionist measures to "encourage" companies to keep jobs in the US, promises to succeed where traditional politicians fail etc. If you considered them ludicrous positions then, why do you not consider them so now? Why does Trump convincing marginally more people to vote for him in strategically targeted areas across the country suddenly make points you dismissed outright a fortnight ago suddenly something to be at least considered as an option. Have your views on the issues changed?
In my view the issue is that the media was whipped up in a frenzy this election and this caused the phenomenon. I don't mean that in the sense of your run of the mill excitement around a big event, I mean into an absolute frothing frenzy of complete crazy, much worse than anything I've seen in my life. It was like a fog that distorted the capacity for a huge section of people to actually discuss these issues rationally. Whether this was specific to this cycle or a societal wide trend I don't know but it deserves to be treated as a phenomenon separate to what was going on in society as a whole. Trump was literally portrayed as a Hitler in the making, forgetting that Godwin isn't a thing you can just choose to apply. I hear people talk about how they're scared for their safety now, as if Trump has put gestapo on the streets looking to drag people from their homes. I feel empathy for those people, but it's a position with no basis in reality. You could (fairly) say that Trump invited some criticism by using brash language to characterize a complex situation, but you could also say the media bares the brunt of the responsibility for blowing him up as a cartoon villain to sell papers and generate web traffic. Who's the real villain here again?
The lesson to learn here is we need to be much much more critical of the media that we have been in the past. By all means read the articles, but look very carefully for actual quotes (download full transcripts if possible) and make your own call on whether the things that were actually said warrant the characterization and narrative driven by the article. We live in a day and age where that is more possible than ever so there really is no excuse. If a journalist/outlet mischaracterizes regularly then stop going there (use archive.org if the title is too juicy for you to resist). We need to get way better at holding our media outlets to account. If we do I think you'll find the tone and quality of public discourse suddenly getting a whole lot better and the conditions will be ripe for people to actually emerge from their bubbles.
On November 17 2016 10:27 a_flayer wrote: To put in South Park terms: before all of this, I dismissed the Mr Garrison point of view almost entirely, but now I can no longer do this. And the way people are still railing against Garrison with calls of racism and so on instead of looking at in the way I described above makes me believe people are either unwilling or incapable of making this same adjustment. It seems to me if this (which essentially boils down to name-calling at this point) continues over time, greater separation will occur as a result. But now we're getting into the philosophical doomsday scenarios again which are off-putting to people.
Note, I'm not caught up with South Park but I'm assuming Garrison is a metaphor for Trump here. So I'm taking what you're saying is that you dismissed Trumps talking points but you no longer can because he won. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting, but I've seen a general trend towards this stance since the election so I'll go ahead and post anyway.
This strikes me as a disingenuous approach and I hope that people who take it think about why this is necessary for them. Trumps talking point's haven't changed very much at all. Crack down on illegal immigration, restrictions on Muslim immigration, protectionist measures to "encourage" companies to keep jobs in the US, promises to succeed where traditional politicians fail etc. If you considered them ludicrous positions then, why do you not consider them so now? Why does Trump convincing marginally more people to vote for him in strategically targeted areas across the country suddenly make points you dismissed outright a fortnight ago suddenly something to be at least considered as an option. Have your views on the issues changed?
In my view the issue is that the media was whipped up in a frenzy this election and this caused the phenomenon. I don't mean that in the sense of your run of the mill excitement around a big event, I mean into an absolute frothing frenzy of complete crazy, much worse than anything I've seen in my life. It was like a fog that distorted the capacity for a huge section of people to actually discuss these issues rationally. Whether this was specific to this cycle or a societal wide trend I don't know but it deserves to be treated as a phenomenon separate to what was going on in society as a whole. Trump was literally portrayed as a Hitler in the making, forgetting that Godwin isn't a thing you can just choose to apply. I hear people talk about how they're scared for their safety now, as if Trump has put gestapo on the streets looking to drag people from their homes. I feel empathy for those people, but it's a position with no basis in reality. You could (fairly) say that Trump invited some criticism by using brash language to characterize a complex situation, but you could also say the media bares the brunt of the responsibility for blowing him up as a cartoon villain to sell papers and generate web traffic. Who's the real villain here again?
The lesson to learn here is we need to be much much more critical of the media that we have been in the past. By all means read the articles, but look very carefully for actual quotes (download full transcripts if possible) and make your own call on whether the things that were actually said warrant the characterization and narrative driven by the article. We live in a day and age where that is more possible than ever so there really is no excuse. If a journalist/outlet mischaracterizes regularly then stop going there (use archive.org if the title is too juicy for you to resist). We need to get way better at holding our media outlets to account. If we do I think you'll find the tone and quality of public discourse suddenly getting a whole lot better and the conditions will be ripe for people to actually emerge from their bubbles.
/endrant
I feel like the only difference in your standpoint and mine is that I really see the staunch opposition of Trump by the media at large (and not so much regarding his actual talking points, but the frenzied focus on racism and misogyny) as part of a much larger global trend regarding the social divide so accurately portrayed in season 19 of this excellent cartoon. Just to give one example, the same sort of stuff is happening in smaller measures here in the Netherlands where some people are against "Zwarte Piet" because it could be considered racist (and yeah that's an old article but the discussion is still going on).
It's hard to pin it down exactly what the gap is made up out of (liberal vs conservative, establishment vs anti-establishment, secularism vs religion, guns vs no guns, etc), but I think South Park captured the whole thing quite well throughout the entire 19th season. It shocked me quite profoundly as I watched/listened to the whole season during the course of an exceedingly boring morning of looking at lights on a dashboard.
And who knows, maybe it's always been obvious to everyone how large this gap was, but considering the reaction of the lady in that video I posted, I'm thinking I'm not alone in underestimating its existence or the potential impact it could have on choices people make (eg. Trump).
Edit: Thanks for that video, I was thinking of looking for something like that or even worse make some amateurish attempt at creating it for myself in order to get the point across more clearly.
Yeah that's all fair. I agree with your position, I just find it strange that I'm seeing a lot of people (not necessarily here) talk about issues like globalism, the needs of the working class and PC more openly when two weeks ago even debating them would be called racist. While on a superficial level I see that as I good thing, I want people to reflect on why a relatively close election with so many unrelated variables caused the fog to be lifted.
Anyway I think the Wisecrack analysis of season 19 sums up a lot of what South Park got right:
On November 17 2016 10:27 a_flayer wrote: To put in South Park terms: before all of this, I dismissed the Mr Garrison point of view almost entirely, but now I can no longer do this. And the way people are still railing against Garrison with calls of racism and so on instead of looking at in the way I described above makes me believe people are either unwilling or incapable of making this same adjustment. It seems to me if this (which essentially boils down to name-calling at this point) continues over time, greater separation will occur as a result. But now we're getting into the philosophical doomsday scenarios again which are off-putting to people.
Note, I'm not caught up with South Park but I'm assuming Garrison is a metaphor for Trump here. So I'm taking what you're saying is that you dismissed Trumps talking points but you no longer can because he won. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting, but I've seen a general trend towards this stance since the election so I'll go ahead and post anyway.
This strikes me as a disingenuous approach and I hope that people who take it think about why this is necessary for them. Trumps talking point's haven't changed very much at all. Crack down on illegal immigration, restrictions on Muslim immigration, protectionist measures to "encourage" companies to keep jobs in the US, promises to succeed where traditional politicians fail etc. If you considered them ludicrous positions then, why do you not consider them so now? Why does Trump convincing marginally more people to vote for him in strategically targeted areas across the country suddenly make points you dismissed outright a fortnight ago suddenly something to be at least considered as an option. Have your views on the issues changed?
In my view the issue is that the media was whipped up in a frenzy this election and this caused the phenomenon. I don't mean that in the sense of your run of the mill excitement around a big event, I mean into an absolute frothing frenzy of complete crazy, much worse than anything I've seen in my life. It was like a fog that distorted the capacity for a huge section of people to actually discuss these issues rationally. Whether this was specific to this cycle or a societal wide trend I don't know but it deserves to be treated as a phenomenon separate to what was going on in society as a whole. Trump was literally portrayed as a Hitler in the making, forgetting that Godwin isn't a thing you can just choose to apply. I hear people talk about how they're scared for their safety now, as if Trump has put gestapo on the streets looking to drag people from their homes. I feel empathy for those people, but it's a position with no basis in reality. You could (fairly) say that Trump invited some criticism by using brash language to characterize a complex situation, but you could also say the media bares the brunt of the responsibility for blowing him up as a cartoon villain to sell papers and generate web traffic. Who's the real villain here again?
The lesson to learn here is we need to be much much more critical of the media that we have been in the past. By all means read the articles, but look very carefully for actual quotes (download full transcripts if possible) and make your own call on whether the things that were actually said warrant the characterization and narrative driven by the article. We live in a day and age where that is more possible than ever so there really is no excuse. If a journalist/outlet mischaracterizes regularly then stop going there (use archive.org if the title is too juicy for you to resist). We need to get way better at holding our media outlets to account. If we do I think you'll find the tone and quality of public discourse suddenly getting a whole lot better and the conditions will be ripe for people to actually emerge from their bubbles.
/endrant
While your general point regarding looking for quotes, first hand sources, and citations in media is good, I think it is a mistake to normalize Trump and put all the blame on the media for making him seem outlandish. Go back to his actual statements. He claimed to have personally seen thousands of american muslims celebrating 9/11, he said that women who seek abortions should be punished only to walk it back the next day, he insisted that he had some miracle plan to defeat isis which he could not tell anyone and demanded we all just trust him on it, he told african americans they were living in hell. And it was more than the media. His own party admitted these things: Paul Ryan described Trumps comments on a judge of hispanic descent as textbook racism, Mitt Romney described Trump as a con man and correctly predicted that Trump would react with childish insults as well as never release any of his taxes that could prove Romney wrong, Ted Cruz (admittedly while running against Trump) described Trump as a compulsive liar and philanderer.
Garrison as a stand in for Trump runs on a campaign of "fuck em all to death" for a reason. He's not simply "using brash language." The media is certainly imperfect, and the highly partisan niche media that gets shared on facebook would be incredible satire if it wasn't sincere, but that's a more fundamental human problem than anything else. We all prefer to hear things that confirms our beliefs rather than challenges them. Getting news that agrees with what you already think is just more enjoyable. News agencies being for profit business naturally start filling that demand, and if they don't, than another channel will. This is also why this modern age, while giving us more access to information than ever, does not result in an informed populace. With so much information out there and easily accessible, it just means you can go find as much "evidence" as you want to support any position you'd like to take regardless of how much real evidence may be out there opposing you.
I love when Rick comes on haha, legendary fun. Still when will we get the ending, i guess we got most of the ending in the last episode, we atleast got the motivation. 10th and final episode next week? or we getting more
I kinda expected more. We never even got to see who is behind Mr. Garrison getting elected and where the memberberries came from... "Sent him a picture of my dick and called him a faget" that totally got me though.
Yeh wtf was that ending lol. Worst episode of the season for me but still i enjoyed alot of but maybe the Trump winning fucked things up. However last 3 episodes member berries just didn't even exist, that was a shame, they were my favourite part What happened to the side story of J.J. Abrams too with the member berries ? lol
On December 10 2016 20:21 Pandemona wrote: Yeh wtf was that ending lol. Worst episode of the season for me but still i enjoyed alot of but maybe the Trump winning fucked things up. However last 3 episodes member berries just didn't even exist, that was a shame, they were my favourite part What happened to the side story of J.J. Abrams too with the member berries ? lol
On December 09 2016 05:55 xDaunt wrote: Eh, this season was a huge let down compared to last season. There were a few good jokes, but all in all, the episodes just weren't that funny.
Completely agree.
Their new thing of doing a continous story instead of separate episodes just isn't that good IMO.
EPT
