Talk:South Park/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 December 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 18:35, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Mission tagged; I say delete it. But don't really agree with the homos comment. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:20, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Done. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 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^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 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 McWicked^Revolt 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.--En attendant Godot_{"«I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child. --V.Nabokov»} 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^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 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? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 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. SuperJosh "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 really^TM 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, --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)

For South Park, I'd say Poe's Law and Hanlon's razor always apply:

1. It is impossible to distinguish between sincerely-held extreme views and outrageous parodies of extreme views on South Park.
2. 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)