I'll never understand this kind of thinking
Why can't we make distinctions? If your friend had a miscarriage is it okay to make fun of them? I sure don't think so. What's wrong with a little respect for people's feelings?
That's the central theme of South Park though. Other people are shit and you shouldn't give a shit. Alternatively, people who can't come up with jokes that aren't based in bigotry and prejudice are bad writers.
>listening to South Park
I don't think it's bad to make fun of miscarriages, better than to say that woman that you feel terribly sorry for her, acting like it's the worst, shameful thing that could happen to someone. If you poke some fun at it, she maybe can too.
Nobody's objective. We all have preconceived notions built based on our experience and teachings.
The best thing you can do is acknowledge your biases and try to limit their influence on your beliefs by learning more about the subject at hand.
But claiming you have no biases just means you aren't aware of yours, which means you probably have very biased views.
That just doesn't make sense. Taking into account the ratio of mean:funny is an important part of comedy. You can always just spew insults and someone will find it funny. That doesn't make it good.
>If your friend had a miscarriage is it okay to make fun of them?
They're not saying you should emotionally torment someone who has had a miscarriage.
They're saying miscarriages are just as "okay" to make fun of in the abstract as anything else. (I know SP wasn't talking about miscarriages, but you were, so I went with it.)
I wouldn't scream at someone and mock them relentlessly for stubbing their toe on a table, but that doesn't mean I "think stub-jokes are offensive," it means I'm not autistic and I don't think in weird absolutes.
>What's wrong with a little respect for people's feelings?
Making a distinction isn't the same thing as a distinction existing. You don't have to understand your putative friend's feelings as well as you'd hope in order to make the joke; you make that joke at the risk of your friendship.
In the most literal sense, he's correct. Either it's all "OK" and you don't care about the consequences of your actions - or accept that the times it will be badly received are more consequential loss than direct damage - or you do and you seek to mitigate the possibility of causing offence. It's not about being "politically correct", which isn't a thing anyway (other than as a snarlword), it's about understanding the way that you relate to other people and having a sense of proportion about your own actions and realistic self-awareness.
After all, if you're going to go through life offending people and not caring, then you have just as delusional a self-image as PC Principal or pretty much any of the other roman a clef characters of South Park.
polite sage for not /co/
>If your friend had a miscarriage is it okay to make fun of them?
So it was wrong of me to hang this on her door to ward away further miscarriages?
Because once you start placing emphasis on what will hurt feelings then all of a sudden nothing becomes OK because someone will find a way to be offended or get their feelings hurt. Remember the Mr. Hankey episode where they have to keep rewriting the Christmas play because just one random person is offended over the stupidest reasons? You give the overly sensitive people an inch they're going to take a mile, better to just let people make fun of anything and simply say "if you dont like it dont watch it'
The difference is a legal/social mandate between what is okay to joke about.
Going with your example, it's like banning jokes or comments about miscarriages because you could possibly offend people affected by miscarriages, even though your joke doesn't offer a specific, tangible target.
It's an absolute about an abstract. It's not an absolute about a specific situation. Just because I wouldn't ever mock someone who had just had an abortion, it doesn't mean I think "abortion jokes are off limits." I means I'm able to take each situation as it comes, and I'm able to weigh my RIGHT to say whatever the fuck I want against my OBLIGATION to consider the feelings of the people around me.
The issue with your point is that isn't what they mean. The point of South Park is if you can laugh at something else or be fine with it, then when it's your turn you should be able to still laugh.
It's not saying it's ok to mock people all the time or harass them. It's saying that there's a certain level where everyone can be made fun of, and don't complain about your lumps if you were fine with someone else having them. That is the hypocrisy South Park pokes at and always had.
>Why can't we make distinctions?
Because any distinctions we do make will be fucking ARBITRARY, if you get to make up rules about what people can and can't say then everyone else gets to make up their own rules too. No one elected you or anyone else divine arbiter of good taste.
Being an asshole is being an asshole and you can call an asshole and asshole if you want and stop hanging out with him.
But we're talking about shit like the law, broadcast standards and people being prevented from publishing books. That's not the same as being an asshole to your friend.
You can, of course, make distinctions in your personal relationships
However, a broadcast network is not a personal relationship. The point of the episode is that if you give in to one group demanding censorship, EVERY group demanding censorship now has precedent to bully you into it. And what's worse, by giving into VIOLENCE, you are showing them that the best way to achieve their goals is violent threats
Once you've given into someone, you have implicitly chosen a side. Why give into the demands of muslims but ignore catholics? There's only two answers:
1. Because muslims are willing to get violent, which means you are communicating to the world "Do you want us to respect your wishes? Get violent with us"
2. Because you simply care more about the opinions and wishes of muslims more than you do about catholics.
You can be in poor taste and people will turn you away. I hate /pol/ screaming about nagas in every thread but that's because it's stupid and off topic. I don't think we should ban them for their views.
What is it to say that me being triggered by pictures of kittens is no less wrong than people being triggered by gore? If we're going to remove things because it triggers them, then how can we have any discussion?
>Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense.
Kyle is definitely a huge dick. Not nearly as bad as Cartman but he's done some really awful stuff.
He tried to murder the Queer Eye guys because he was getting bullied at school for not being gay.
He almost burnt down the school because he was voted ugliest.
He happily sent Cartman, Kevin and Clyde off to Somalia in the hopes that Cartman would get killed by pirates. He only cared when he found out Ike went with them.
He snuck in to Cartman's room and beat him unconscious with a club, then he kept beating the shit out of him just because he wanted to.
There are probably others I'm forgetting right now.
Fucking sub-human scaleskins should be shipped back to India.
>Because any distinctions we do make will be fucking ARBITRARY
All rules are arbitrary. Usually they're based on the majority arbitrary opinion of the people who make up the society.
That doesn't make rules bad
Modern society generally aspires to remove arbitrarity from law. Double standards are generally frowned upon and special pleading is not acceptable to have in your laws. It's all or nothing system so if you try and censor everything that comes under specific criteria, you should censor everything.
What other difference there is between Muslims and Christians/Jews/Buddhists/Atheists/Wiccans?
If you simply don't feel like talking shit about religion it's one thing. But then you wouldn't air South Park on your network at all.
i bet you people think the holocaust actually happened too.
No I didn't. I implied that if you are a broadcast network, selectively censoring some things and not others is going to make people question why you choose to censor what you do. And when they do that, the answer is going to become clear: Either you are censoring certain things out of fear of violence, or you simply care more about the wishes of some groups than you do about the wishes of others. In the case we were talking about, I find it difficult to believe that Comedy Central cares more about the opinions of muslims than other groups. So all I can conclude is that they censor things out of fear of violence, sending a loud message to the world that violence works.
You can have a thousand different reasons to want to selectively censor some things and not others in the context of a personal relationship. But a broadcast network is not a personal relationship.
Now, try again.
>All rules are arbitrary.
No they're not.
Saying "Killing someone is bad" is arbitrary, saying "If you kill someone then you're a murderer" is not, and the latter is the actual rule, the objective rule is based on the subjective judgement.
What you're proposing is a rule that is both based on something arbitrary, that being "hurting people's feelings is bad" AND arbitrary itself. "If you hurt someone's feelings then you will be punished" is an arbitrary as fuck rule, because anyone can claim to have their feelings hurt and no one can prove shit about it. There's NO FUCKING WAY TO ENFORCE IT and it requires society to ban practically all kinds of expression.
>What's wrong with a little respect for people's feelings?
>Why can't we make distinctions?
You can, personally. You can choose not to support shows or channels that offend you.
Do you honestly think a stand up comedian could point at a woman who has recently had a miscarriage, mock her for it and then expect to have a career after that? Nope. This doesn't happen and if you actually think that's what South Park is implying, then you're very wrong.
Could a comedian do a bit about miscarriages in general with a funny spin and have men and women in the audience laugh? yep. Can you be offended by this? Sure. So you definitely shouldn't give this comedian your cash or views on youtube.
You can be offended, you can get upset behind your keyboard and you have every right, then again we have the right to laugh at you for that.
It's about freedom, having the option to make fun of something. But part of it, a point your pic doesn't really sum up, is also knowing when it's appropriate
For example, if you're hanging out with friends or you're on 4chan or something then you can probably joke about something like a miscarriage. Now, if you had a friend/wife/whatever who just had a miscarriage, you wouldn't joke about that to her face cause that's just a dick thing to do. So you should be able to joke about anything you want, but you should also be a decent human being and know when it's appropriate.
What episode is this from anyways? I want to say it's from the 200/201 episode thing but I can't remember certainly
Yeah, I think people often mistake criticism or condemnation for outright censorship.
You are well within your rights to make nigger faggot jokes all day long, the problem comes when you get indignant if someone calls you racist or homophobic for it.
Comedy does not insulate you from people thinking you're an asshole in the same way that saying "well it's just my opinion" doesn't magic away people not liking you.
I find you all guilty of snekicide
How do people still not get this?
They aren't advocating that you shit on everyone around you for everything that's happened to them, they're saying that you can't make hard distinctions on what's okay to make fun of
Everything is fair game for discussion and comedy, that's what free speech is. Anyone with a brain knows not to make fun of a friend's miscarriage, not because it shouldn't be allowed, but because it's not funny
It pisses me off how much people are willing to (or think other people should) tiptoe around religious beliefs like they're any more special than any other kind of belief. Making fun of someone's religious beliefs is literally no different than making fun of their political beliefs. If you can make fun of republicans and democrats you should be able to make fun of Christians and Muslims.
>you should be able to joke about anything you want, but you should also be a decent human being and know when it's appropriate.
Also, you have the freedom to be a dick and other people have the freedom to choose not associate with you any more if they think you are a dick. What you don't have is freedom from people being dicks. Everyone has to put up with that, it's part of life. Safe space faggots who dream of a life where no-one ever upsets them just dream of a fucking fantasy world of no conflict and no differences of opinion that will never exist.
You are a disgusting hugboxing individual OP
. Life is shit and people die too, some people are naturally better than others, welcome to the human race.
>So it was wrong of me to hang this on her door to ward away further miscarriages?
This is great. Someone tell /b/ to get on this. Get people to believe this logo protects from miscarriages.
/thread right here.
>If you make exceptions for one thing that you can't make fun of, eventually you'll have to have to make more exceptions until you can't make fun of anything.
That's a slippery slope fallacy. It's the same reasoning that if you let boys marry boys, eventually you have to let boys marry dogs.
No you don't. Just because "A might lead to B" is not an argument against the merits of A
Because dicks have the same right as you and everyone else. If you start taking the rights of dicks away, you're pretty much opening the system up to where everyone's rights can be taken away and then you become like the UK.
Our rules are not based on subjective feelings. "I murdered John because I felt he deserved to die" or "I stole Ms. Smith's money because I felt I need it more" will not get you far in court.
Ideally, people should be free to not support, endorse or be complicit in actions they do not approve or refuse to associate with people whom they don't like. But it doesn't mean anyone has right to announce "This should be banned because I don't approve it"
Dicks should have the right to be dicks just as long as they're prepared to face the consequences of their actions. You act like a dick, no one's going to want to be around you and that's your own fault. But people should still have the right to make that choice for themselves
>Our rules are not based on subjective feelings
Yeah they are
Why do murderers get the death penalty? So the family can "have closure". It's for revenge, no matter how you dress it up. And it's legal.
> If you start taking the rights of dicks away, you're pretty much opening the system up to where everyone's rights can be taken away
Slippery slope again. Just because you make one thing illegal does not mean you eventually make all things illegal.
Dogs are objectively not humans.
Meanwhile literally everything anyone could possibly say is subjectively offensive to SOMEONE.
Why are the feelings of your pet minority or interest group more important than the feelings of any other group? Why do you get to set the terms of the hurt feelings law?
>That's a slippery slope fallacy. It's the same reasoning that if you let boys marry boys, eventually you have to let boys marry dogs.
To be honest, I don't understand how one can endorse homosexuality, but not zoophilia. Are you PETA or something that you care about animals' feelings?
>No you don't. Just because "A might lead to B" is not an argument against the merits of A
No, the argument is "You want A, but there are other As as well". It's you who is complicity in fallacy of distinction without difference or of special pleading.
>Why do murderers get the death penalty? So the family can "have closure". It's for revenge, no matter how you dress it up. And it's legal.
Are you actually a toddler? What did you study at your university?
If you really care that much, yes. But I think the extent to which someone allows the behavior of dicks to influence their own behavior says a lot about them as a person. Spending your life moaning about what other people are doing doesn't seem like a particularly productive use of time.
>He happily sent Cartman, Kevin and Clyde off to Somalia in the hopes that Cartman would get killed by pirates. He only cared when he found out Ike went with them.
What's wrong with that? Kyle just wanted Ike back. He couldn't have cared less about Cartman and the others.
We feel that murder is bad, yes. Actually, not so much this as we hate being murdered so much we even agreed to stop murdering ourselves.
But murder is an objective fact. It is presumed that every conviction must be based on objective facts. And although it isn't perfect, at least by design we are supposed to prove that the accused have actually committed the crime in such way that ideally, everyone looking that the evidence would be convinced.
But if your feelings are hurt, it's not provable. It's 100% hearsay. It's also run contrary to what laws are designed for and it is to be predictable.
Of course. Feelings are supreme after all.
I'd rather live in a society where feelings can be hurt even if it means I'm insulted everyday and offended to the point of not being able to sleep through rage and sadness then living in a society where being offensive is banned. Because I've lived in that society and it's fucking awful.
there's no logical conclusion to the discussion because it's a subjective issue.
ironically, free speech is what allows people to voice their opinions about issues like this, even when they contrast against the idea of free speech
what's subjective is the idea of whether or not it's morally acceptable to make fun at peoples' expense.
the subject as a legal issue is more objective, but it lies in the realm of ethics which are anything but concrete
We always make fun at people's expense. Except maybe if we joke about weather, not such if anyone would hold weather dear enough to take offence. But most of jokes are bound to offend someone. Because most things are held dear by someone.
The question is not "Am I willing to offend people who hold things dear". Because everyone is willing or they'd be mute. The question is "Holding what dear enough to take offence would make people unworthy of my consideration"
Don't know if you're serious, but it's easy to convince yourself that we should, because somethings may appear out of limits to be joked about, but a bit of rationalizing soon takes that thought away.
Because what you think is OK, other people will find offensive.
If you get to censor them, they get to censor you.
Would you prefer a world where you can say whatever you like? Or a world where some Donald Trump supporter can silence you because he finds your thoughts offensive?
>I hate /pol/ screaming about nagas in every thread but that's because it's stupid and off topic.
Wat? I haven't been to /pol/ in a while, but that's a bizarre and apolitical thing for them to obsess over.
Free speech does not protect speech that you like, it protects speech that you hate/find offensive. It's not that hard to understand, it has to all be okay-because even if you are in the moral right, someone out there thinks you're wrong/offensive, and all it takes is for them to get into a position of power to strip your rights away.
Everyone loves snekposting.
Even if it is degenerate heresy.
My sister-in-law has had a miscarriage.
I would never make a joke about it because I don't believe that humor would make it easier to deal with or ease my family's pain.
Some things simply don't respond well to humor.
it stems from hunter gatherer times. Tribes were really really small so every body worked for the benefit of everybody. Killing someone meant you killed your brother, someone you broke bread with, and that is why it's punishable by death (back then it was exile which was pretty much slow death). Because you can no longer be trusted.
This a kind of an unspoken rule in comedy. You can make a joke about anything or about anybody and about any subject.
Miscarriges, rape, the holocaust. It's all on the table. However, you better be god damn sure that it's funny. And I don't just mean some people laugh, but enough that even the people didn't laugh at it, understand it's a joke. Otherwise you're not better than a teenager going LOL JEWS DIED IN AN OVEN" at best, and extremely disrespectful.
it's how Louie C.K was able to say nigger a shit ton of times and not get in trouble.
I'm glad we can all get behind snek girls
Because it's called hipocrisy.
Humor is about making fun of people, if it is others then it is funny, but not so much when it is about you, which is something you have to deal with instead of making a drama.
sliping on a banana or criticizing aeroplane food may be funny to you but try to spent hours making plane food or spending a week in the hospital after cracking your teeth and see how funny it is. Does that mean we should ban humor or only make fun of pollitically correct stuff? No, it means humor is offensive, you laugh or you deal with it, end of the story.
>it stems from hunter gatherer times. Tribes were really really small so every body worked for the benefit of everybody. Killing someone meant you killed your brother, someone you broke bread with, and that is why it's punishable by death (back then it was exile which was pretty much slow death). Because you can no longer be trusted.
Thank you Desmond Morris, can you explain to me again how butch lesbians breed homosexual boys?
The creators of South Park aren't wise with all the answers. They're a couple of dudes that have opinions and like everyone else a lot of their opinions are shit, except the ones I agree with
It's the basic same concept as freedom of speech. I may disagree with what someone has to say, but I will respect their right to say it.
What most people are too stupid to understand though, is that just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't mean I am obligated to listen to you. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't make a colossal fucking shitfest like a two year old child throwing a temper tantrum. Just change the tv channel. Or leave that webpage.
>If your friend had a miscarriage is it okay to make fun of them? I sure don't think so.
There's a difference between not making fun of someone and not poking fun at a concept. I wouldn't make fun of a person with a miscarriage but i would make miscarriage jokes.
Well he want really talking specifics. He meant like in this case religion. All other religions can be made fun of except one? In that case it is either everything or nothing. The miscarriage case would be the equivalent of why can we make fun of that woman having too many abortions but when ___'s mom has an abortion it is suddenly taboo? Kyle kinda just phrased incorrectly.
>Can you explain why we should want to minimize offense? You're just assuming this is a good thing.
You don't have to want to minimize offense, and minimizing offense isn't, by itself, a good thing.
It's a matter of cause and effect. If you are offensive, there's a chance people will be offended. You should
Well that's the thing, if you demand the right to be a jerk, why should anyone give it to you? You're a jerk and demanding something from people? You're not likely to get it in that case.
Because the moment making fun of "this" is fine, but making fun of "that" is not fine, you open the idea to bad, potentially dangerous ideas not only gaining traction, but going unopposed.