Talk:South Park

Why
Why do we even have this page? It's not on mission, it's orphaned and personally, who cares about what two homos from Colorado do in their free time? SirChuckB  18:35, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Mission tagged; I say delete it. But don't really agree with the homos comment.   19:20, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Done. -- 19:49, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * CUR, I think that may have been a little premature, but if there is any strong opposition to the delete, we can hash it out and Weasel, it was meant more as a joke, although I understand that how it wouldn't come off as such. I also would say that I hate South Park and the guys who write it..... So I'm usually pretty nasty about it.  I apologise for any offense caused. SirChuckB  21:45, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, thanks for deleting the article CUR. Didn't need any discussion, but we'll just do what you want instead... SuperJosh "some guy"  05:35, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * South Park is a damn damn damn poor excuse for a show. Myself, I like Simpsons. And porn of course. Ace McWickedRevolt 05:51, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I've restored it, as it's a bit hard discussing whether or not to delete an article when you can't read it. For the record, I say delete. Or move it to the fun namespace. I agree that it's a damn poor excuse for a show most of the time, although the Scientology episode and the 24 piss take were class. Bondurant 06:32, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I love south park. Something so damn Colorado about it.  ;-)  That said, this artile is not part of our wiki, nor does it have the "goat" of articles like goat.  Either really make it snarky/fun and then move to fun space, or delete.-- 10:59, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Given much of the subject matter they poke fun at (Scientology, anti-drug education et al), South Park is at least as on mission as Firesign Theatre. Is this more knee-jerk pwogwessive lefty smarm dissing on South Park ("and the guys who write it" ) because the guys who write it aren't from the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party? Secret Squirrel 17:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Ok one, why are you such a prick? something in the water?  Anyway, this may come as a shock to you.... I don't know every article on RW.... I had not known that there was a firesign theatre page and now that I have seen it, I would say it is also off mission and not something we need here... I found this page becuase I was going through the orphaned pages and this turned up Shock and AWE... Now then, as to what little point you had, why does everything come from Moveon in your world?  Stop looking in the closet for liberal boogeymen.  This is about this article... South Park... Being off mission and unimportant.  This information is covered on WP and done much better... So I started a talk page discussion about it.... and oh yeah, Go fuck yourself. SirChuckB  18:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Much as I like South Park, this is totally off message and should be moved/deleted/whatever. Interestingly, I used to think South Park was juvenile and stupid...when I was 11. Now I think it's a brilliant social satire. What does that say about me? -- 22:24, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If anyone cares, I love the show too, but agree both that this article sucks compared the the WP article and that in its present form it has nothing to do with the mission. Unless it gets snarked up with specific references from the show to the kind of hypocrisy and fundamental dishonesty that has me splitting my sides nearly daily at CP, I say flush it. If anyone knows the show well enough to do this, you might stick this turd in your sandbox and play with it awhile. Nutty Roux 22:34, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I have to say, honestly, I wish I'd never written this bloody article now lol. Good discussion everyone, but I'm deleting it. Super Josh "crying into a flannel"  05:21, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree. It's off-marglar. Totnesmarglar 05:37, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

The last section
This strikes me as being a lot of hot air. Above the article rightly lights into Isaac Hayes, and then moans and bitches when it makes fun of some of this site's pet causes. You can't say that Scientologists have no right to be unoffended and then whine when they make fun of groups you (as well as I) happen to support. This is different from the environmental part, which they do deserve criticism for because it's a factual mistake. Someone explain to me how the last section is anything other than shrieking "Poking fun at religious people is humor, but this is just plain reallyTM offensive"!!!!11!1 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 05:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no legitimate reason to make fun of transgender, so i fail to see your point, -- Mie kal  05:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's one, and it's not to make fun of the people themselves; rather, it's simply to get under the skin of the same people who laugh so loud when it's the religious right who's offended. If you make your career out of offending people, why not try to get everyone? Besides, it seems to have crossed no one's mind that these sorts of things might just be an attempt at a Poe's Law application in TV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 05:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For South Park, I'd say Poe's Law and Hanlon's razor always apply:
 * It is impossible to distinguish between sincerely-held extreme views and outrageous parodies of extreme views on South Park.
 * All of South Park can be attributed to the creators having a notably stupid sense of humour.
 * 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

==="Exactly why this subject is off-limits to parody, or how it could possibly be construed as serious given the context, is something the people who had their delicate sensibilities offended after laughing so hard at other peoples' religious beliefs have yet to explain."=== The section doesn't claim these subjects should be off-limits. Where do you get that from? The matter is simply that RationalWiki is pro-abortion-rights and pro-trans-acceptance, thus the article takes a look at what views regarding these subjects are expressed in South Park. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually watch the episode, it's incredibly obvious (at least to those who aren't blinded from self-righteous indignation) they're being sarcastic. Basically, there's a point at which being accepting ends and going into social justice warrior mode begins. That the SJWs take great offense at that episode shows how thin-skinned they are and only drives home the point that Stone and Parker have made many times, namely that liberals and conservatives are equally as prone to seeking freedom of speech right until the point that something rubs them the wrong way. RW has received some justified criticism for being too SJW-friendly, and this is one small place to push back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 05:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Season 19 (Current Season)
Has anyone been watching the current season. We've already had digs at Caitlyn Jenner claiming that there is nothing redeeming in her life right now and of course has a "season arc" attacking political correctness. There should probably be comments about the current season in the main article, including certain deficiencies with the message the episodes seem to support. Make sure that it's perfectly balanced and reminds people that the show has no sacred cows, and that it's natural for everything to be a target, of course.Mmoore29 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we having to be balanced, again?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying there have to be comments about the type of things Matt Stone and Trey Parker are basically saying in this season: All people who say "Say Caitlyn, don't say Bruce" are uptight ultra-PC people who can't handle criticism, that Caitlyn Jenner is bullying her way into acceptance, that all attempts to build something nice will only make things worse for poor people (the most recent episode has a "Good Part of Town" to attract people to live there literally built around Kenny's house), and seems to say that everyone should say all kinds of slurs and never be punished for it. But it should also come as a reminder that nothing has changed, and what did you expect from these two?Mmoore29 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yah, no. That it has a history of being unfunny and stupid ofensive does not mean we have to give them a pass for it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, does that mean that there can't be something about the newest season? I really think there should be talks about it and the fact the whole season-long arc is described as "a big fuck you to the PC Police."Mmoore29 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * South Park is a big "fuck you" to everyone.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The last episode (Safe Space) was rather ironic, it is like the writers seek a safe space from critical attitudes, and to say so they criticise the notion of safe spaces where people can avoid unwanted attitudes. BrowserWarVet (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This latest season just shows that progressives are every bit the retarded shitheads that they make conservatives out to be. And they have this annoying habit of being right, too... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You guys are continually missing his point. The show used to be more even handed, but the past season or two have been entirely anti-PC bullshit and increasingly pushing right wing narratives. They've almost never gone after only one issue for more than an episode. I mean, the show stopped being funny years ago, but at least it wasn't thinly veiled Libertarian propaganda. It's basically there now. I can't even force myself to watch it now. CosmicDustJunkie (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you're responding to a thread that ended three years ago right? 02:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how this page claims Matt and Trey are pro-life when they aren't &mdash; Unsigned, by: 216.160.64.121 / talk
 * I don't like that. Probably not transphobic either. Aliveslice (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't call them transphobic anywhere, it just says they have a mixed depiction. Defensive much? And it doesn't call them Pro-Life, it says they take that side more often, with proof. Why is it that the South Park fans who call everyone too sensitive get so upset about anyone calling out Matt and Trey?CosmicDustJunkie (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Anti-LGBT Commentary on the South Park Page
I signed up to Rational Wiki purely as I couldn't figure out a way to report this. I remember reading a mission statement of sorts that Rational Wiki is a welcoming, progressive, LGBT-friendly website, and was thus rather put off by various edits done to the South Park page, which seem to all be traced back to the user The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights.

As I couldn't find anywhere else to report this and this seemed like the closest thing to being able to report such behaviour, below are various negative snippets from the South Park page, talk page, and edit log:

Page (subsection Depiction of abortion rights and transgender people)

o A person as insane as Garrison would not get approved for surgery. Then again, the same people howling about the offense it causes them make no such complaints about the similarly distorted portrayals of religious people and such, so for people who make a career out of parody there is no obvious reason this particular topic should be excepted.

o "Dad, is it possible for someone to be one way on the outside, but totally different on the inside? I mean, can somebody identify as one sex, but be something else, but still have it be nothing about sex?" It seems their views have become more enlightened with age, or perhaps it simply showed that their viewers didn't know how to take biting satire when it offended their sensibilities.

Talk Page

- This strikes me as being a lot of hot air. Above the article rightly lights into Isaac Hayes, and then moans and bitches when it makes fun of some of this site's pet causes. You can't say that Scientologists have no right to be unoffended and then whine when they make fun of groups you (as well as I) happen to support. This is different from the environmental part, which they do deserve criticism for because it's a factual mistake. Someone explain to me how the last section is anything other than shrieking "Poking fun at religious people is humor, but this is just plain reallyTM offensive"!!!!11!1 The Blade of the Northern Lights

-- There's no legitimate reason to make fun of transgender, so i fail to see your point, --Miekal 05:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

--- There's one, and it's not to make fun of the people themselves; rather, it's simply to get under the skin of the same people who laugh so loud when it's the religious right who's offended. If you make your career out of offending people, why not try to get everyone? Besides, it seems to have crossed no one's mind that these sorts of things might just be an attempt at a Poe's Law application in TV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

- If you actually watch the episode, it's incredibly obvious (at least to those who aren't blinded from self-righteous indignation) they're being sarcastic. Basically, there's a point at which being accepting ends and going into social justice warrior mode begins. That the SJWs take great offense at that episode shows how thin-skinned they are and only drives home the point that Stone and Parker have made many times, namely that liberals and conservatives are equally as prone to seeking freedom of speech right until the point that something rubs them the wrong way. RW has received some justified criticism for being too SJW-friendly, and this is one small place to push back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

- This latest season just shows that progressives are every bit the retarded shitheads that they make conservatives out to be. And they have this annoying habit of being right, too... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Log/Fossil Record

- (cur | prev) 04:27, 7 June 2015‎ The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,182 bytes) (+320)‎. . (Tweaked a little bit; it's perfectly reasonable, the SJWs sometimes need a reminder that they can get *way* carried away and see things that just aren't there) (undo)

-- (cur | prev) 04:35, 7 June 2015‎ 141.134.75.236 (talk)‎. . (14,862 bytes) (-320)‎. . (→‎Depiction of abortion rights and transgenders: It doesn't fit with the rest of the section. If you think the section shouldn't be here, argue for its removal; don't add passive-aggressive statements about the content into the article itself.) (undo)

--- (cur | prev) 04:53, 7 June 2015‎ The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,047 bytes) (+185)‎. . (→‎Depiction of abortion rights and transgenders: You obviously have an interesting definition of passive-aggressive, but I think the point could be made with less verbiage; it ties in with the opening paragraph) (undo)

- 05:13, 27 September 2020‎ The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs)‎. . (21,517 bytes) (+93)‎. . (→‎Depiction of abortion rights and transgender people: So it's all cool when it hurts *their* delicate feelz... just not yours. I'm an agnostic, and though they seemed to be trying a little too hard in that episode the Dr Pepper was hysterical) (undo)

I don't get involved in politics or wiki debates, but I just wanted to report this here, where it could be visible. For five years, this user has been slamming transgender people, progressives, and liberals. Their language, additions to the page, and general conduct feel like they would fit into Conservapedia far better than Rational Wiki, and this report feels like the only thing I can do to bring attention to this user's activities.

I honestly have no idea if this report will be processed, if the Blade of the Northern Lights can be blocked from making edits to the South Park page (seeing as they;ve undone various edits by other people), or what have you, but this feels like the only course of action I could take that wouldn't just devolve into an edit war, and it bothered me that this funny, witty, and progressive wiki continued to have such mocking, distasteful content (I definitely don't want to go as far as 'hate speech') on one of its pages, when it goes against the whole tone of the rest of the site.

Thanks for reading. x --MajDS (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, that quip about "the SJWs" in the edit summary tells me a lot about that user. 02:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this discussion just be moved to Talk:South Park? Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and should be told about this discussion. Omicron (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . I... don't know what else you want me to say about several-year-old comments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 04:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you really going to "cancel" The Blade of the Northern Lights because of something they wrote 6 years ago? I swear this is as uncalled as people berating Billie Eilish because of an old video. I agree with the changes, but criticizing them because of this after so long? Really? GeeJayK (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious that this is a troll who is either a "regular" and actually remembers RW 2015 for some reason, or is one of those pathetic types that tries to dig through Internet history specifically to cause trouble. Ignore it. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Idk I've seen comments from Blade of Northern Lights I fundamentaly disagree with from time to time, but I do give you that it is a years old comment and shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion. 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Who even gives a fuck about any of this? 06:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

What people, groups, ideas and religions has South Park not made fun of yet?
I swear that they literally made fun of everything including themselves. Will they run out of making fun of things? --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a social commentary program. The current mainstream media, digital, and political environment is ideal for them. Chillpilled (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Trey and Matt's bulshit
Adding to south park inspiring alt right trolls. I also think this fits the article. Trey and Matt had these two interviews where they supported Dave Chappelle. The first one is from the Hollywood reporter in 2019. Where matt stone says he believes that film critics pretended to hate sticks and stones to keep their jobs.1 a far right conspiracy theory that was started by Incel and rapist Max Landis. Son of director John Landis. The theory has also been spread by The Fandom Menace with Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and other nerdy franchises. The second is from the reporter again this time in 2021. Parker and Stone believe that the majority of creatives in Hollywood were happy with Netflix keeping Dave Chappelle's transphobic Netflix special the closer up.2