Brontoforumus

I never said don't call out racism and bigotry. I'm saying that if you go around casually using bigoted terms (e.g. tranny), you should be prepared to live with the consequences.

Well, yes, most are.

Mongrel wrote:Again, in-group usage is different from out-group usage. There are lots of precedents. Yes, people in the in-group will argue and disagree and both will have valid points.

And then you get to watch people bicker over who is and isn't part of the in-group.

I feel like that most people really just want to fight something - anything - right now (if you're feeling charitable, then "fight for something"). Like an entire civilization comprised of the guy who went to the bar specifically looking to bloody his knuckles.

I mean, more so than humans usually do. And in the era of the make-your-own-reality internet you can fight anyone you want to for any reason you feel like.

I like to say that, in a very bizarre way, the Nazis were a gift to our grandparents. It's INCREDIBLY rare to get a truly incontestable and clear (not to mention geographically contiguous) villainy to fight like that.

Whatever is going on, I don't think it's going to end well.

Brentai wrote:

It was always Cartman, the one that people loved to quote.

If anything became a problem it's people forgetting that Cartman is supposed to be absolute garbage.

Well, yeah. Over the course of the first decade or so of the show, he escalated from dressing like Hitler for Halloween to chopping up a couple, putting them in a chili, and feeding them to their son.

Nothing kills comedy like analyzing it, but what the hell:

There is humor in transgression. That's pretty much 75% of South Park's deal. (The remaining 25% is that there's humor in combining things that don't normally go together -- in this case, mostly kids acting like adults.)

But context is important too. I know there's a raging debate about "punching down" these days, with the usual ranting about the PC police trying to censor people. But I'd say it's more a definition of one of the tenets of comedy. Someone who's got power taking advantage of someone who doesn't isn't funny; someone who's powerless putting one over on someone who is powerful is funny. (You'll note the latter combines both things I talked about earlier -- transgression and reversals of expected situations.) Mark Evanier often likes to comment that the reason conservative comedy doesn't work is that it's like doing a Marx Brothers sketch and trying to make Margaret Dumont the funny one.

Hell, even Carlin's joke about "I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See?" is, itself, an exercise in demonstrating that context determines whether or not a joke is funny.

The joke with Cartman isn't just hey, look how transgressive this is. It's that Cartman is an awful, awful person.

But of course he's the most popular character on the show, because he gets all the best jokes. Plus, he's the only one who's remotely interesting or has any depth whatsoever.


(It probably bears adding that I haven't actually watched South Park since 2006. I hear the last two seasons were pretty good but I haven't seen them.)

Thad wrote:But I'd say it's more a definition of one of the tenets of comedy. Someone who's got power taking advantage of someone who doesn't isn't funny; someone who's powerless putting one over on someone who is powerful is funny.

You keep saying that like it's a universal constant but I'm pretty sure the oppressors think it's hilarious to run roughshod over the oppressed.

Minions

There's certainly a brand of humor that is based in the idea of someone(thing) suffering for reasons entirely beyond its control. Possibly immortal little yellow butt plugs with no power and absolute loyalty to the one responsible for their suffering is probably the best way the idea can be expressed without getting confusing fast.

I had a lot of dumb words that I'm not even sure had a topic to be on or off of, but ultimately it came down to the plot of 'Bamboozled' by Spike Lee, so just watch that instead.

Karma+++

Thad wrote:But context is important too. I know there's a raging debate about "punching down" these days, with the usual ranting about the PC police trying to censor people. But I'd say it's more a definition of one of the tenets of comedy. Someone who's got power taking advantage of someone who doesn't isn't funny; someone who's powerless putting one over on someone who is powerful is funny. (You'll note the latter combines both things I talked about earlier -- transgression and reversals of expected situations.) Mark Evanier often likes to comment that the reason conservative comedy doesn't work is that it's like doing a Marx Brothers sketch and trying to make Margaret Dumont the funny one.

Could be that the PC zeitgeist itself or the (from RW perspective) occasionally tyrannical mob enforcing it is being regarded as a power structure to be punched up into. PC intends to protect the downtrodden and oppressed, sure. PC enforcement isn't uniformly seen as by or of* the downtrodden and oppressed. E.g., it wouldn't take gold-medal mental gymnastics to see it not as attacking women, but rather as taking on presumptuous, holier-than-thou white knights or radfem tribes.

Nor is there consensus over who is downtrodden or oppressed. Or whose shitty circumstance matters more. (See: "forgotten man.") I'm not advocating for the right here, but showing a way in which their behavior could be consistent with what you brought up.

Thad wrote:The joke with Cartman isn't just hey, look how transgressive this is. It's that Cartman is an awful, awful person.

But of course he's the most popular character on the show, because he gets all the best jokes. Plus, he's the only one who's remotely interesting or has any depth whatsoever.

They did more with other characters in later seasons, including a great deal with Randy (Stan's dad). Kind of turned him into a less-dumb, but crazier Homer. The Lorde episode and Internet outage episodes spring to mind. Been a while, though.




*Without being specific about my personal demography**, I frequently am displeased with how "my kind" get defended. It's shitty when a thin-skinned, vocal minority from your group serves as ambassador. It's also bad when outsiders make a spotted owl of you. Stuff like overreaching, browbeating people in "your" defense, etc..

Brentai wrote:

Thad wrote:But I'd say it's more a definition of one of the tenets of comedy. Someone who's got power taking advantage of someone who doesn't isn't funny; someone who's powerless putting one over on someone who is powerful is funny.

You keep saying that like it's a universal constant

No, I keep saying it like it's generally the case. Do I really need to slap a "humor is subjective; different people find different things funny" disclaimer on there? Because I thought that was obvious enough that I didn't actually have to say it.

but I'm pretty sure the oppressors think it's hilarious to run roughshod over the oppressed.

That's true to some extent, but even people who watch Fox News didn't watch Red Eye.

sei wrote:They did more with other characters in later seasons, including a great deal with Randy (Stan's dad). Kind of turned him into a less-dumb, but crazier Homer. The Lorde episode and Internet outage episodes spring to mind.

Yeah, I haven't seen those but I played The Stick of Truth and Randy's the best character in it.

I hate that "politically correct", a derogatory term Republicans coined to equate being considerate of others with POLITICAL CONSPIRACY, is accepted terminology now.

OTOH, it's a really useful tell. If somebody says "PC" or "SJW", that's when you know you can stop talking to them. It's a huge time saver.

I think that "huge time saver" might be another reason we're fucked. Should read people who use those terms for filth. None of them expect to be confronted.

Romosome wrote:I hate that "politically correct", a derogatory term Republicans coined to equate being considerate of others with POLITICAL CONSPIRACY, is accepted terminology now.

They didn't coin it. They co-opted it from leftists. The right-wing aren't that creative.

Hmmm...

Yeah, so, not an apology, a "this happened because everyone is too sensitive to allow wildly racist ideas be stated as fact."

I'd honestly prefer a link to the kotaku article about the video rather than the video itself, so as not to give JonTron clicks.

That gives Kotaku clicks, though, and they're terrible for different reasons.

That's kinda comparing apples and nazis, though.

Rotten Apples vs Nazis.

I mean one is clearly much worse than the other, but most sane people would just choose neither.