Now that the dust has settled, can we have an honest discussion

>>78329364
I'm hoping they delve more into those plot points you mentioned next season.

>>78329364
I thought PC Principal was supposed to be like Deckard, and thus him being an ad is meant to be implied but pretty pointless.

>>78329364
I was upset that the ads were not created by the crab people

The season was good cause it made fun of people I dislike.

>>78329364
It was explained. Albeit not toward a very satisfying conclusion.

The ads are much like the machines from The Matrix. They need humanity to exist in order to power them, but they also want to dominate humans. They do this through getting them to buy things. So many things that, eventually, humans can't afford to live and are weakened.

They needed PC Principal and his PC bros to help set the wheels in motion for the gentrification of places like South Park. They shamed the townsfolk into thinking they were a bunch of backwoods hicks, and to shed this reputation, they tried to clean up their act and acquire a Whole Foods. This led to the expensive installations like SoDoSoPa, which rose property values and cost of living, which caused people like Randy to struggle to keep up (he shopped at Whole Foods constantly, spending hundreds each week.)

In short, you use PC to gentrify people into becoming more accepting, which causes them to want to raise their standard of living, which causes them to buy more and welcome more expensive/fancy/snooty places into their lives, which eventually bankrupts and weakens them.

Ok, so they never really sold that final point, that the ads would take over after all the humans were poor and desperate to continue to be tolerated, but that's basically the conclusion you can reach.

Why do people get so upset when things aren't explicitly spelled out for them?

File: freedoms internally.gif (686KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 500x375px

>>78330719
What are you a Terrorist?

what was the point of Leslie getting PC Principal out of military custody? he just killed right after. other than that it was alright.

File: 1449113616156.gif (286KB, 1008x1035px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1008x1035px

>>78329364
South Park balked.

They were giving SJWs a good thrashing all season long, especially when Reality showed up and... gave everyone a fucking dose of reality.
>"Good job spending $500,000 on place settings and steaks to raise $5,000 for chairity."
>"Oh are you sad? Are you gonna cry? Because people are mean? Wake up, the world's not some liberal arts college, moron."
and they did the whole thing with Butters censoring twitter posts and Jimmy talking about ethics in journalism, and then in the bottom of the ninth they go "oops SJWs are our friends now. We're going to try to be PC."

Total bait and switch. Were they planning on becoming PC all season long?

>>78330935
It was kinda dissapointing.
Maybe they ran out of episode space?

I was expecting them to go full Blade Runner and reveal PC Principal as an Ad, who's trying to do good rather than evil; and for the story to go full hardcore and come down on how a house built on SJW norms cannot possibly stand when college aged kids dreaming of success hit reality.

They kinda chickened out.
It wasnt what I thought they'd do.

It felt like a mid season finale

As a gun owner, the gunshow part made me laugh so hard I nearly fell out of my chair.

>>78329364
I feel like they should've done one more episode before ending it like that imo

>>78330935
They're not going to become PC. If anything, the season finale pretty much made it known that next season will talk about as many PC-related issues as this season did.

To paraphrase Stan, to suddenly shift from a free-for-all to a PC sentiment would be really hard.

File: ....jpg (37KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 576x432px

>>78330935
>They were giving SJWs a good thrashing all season long, especially when Reality showed up and... gave everyone a fucking dose of reality.

And then they immediately bailed on that and brought up this whole advertisement conspiracy out of left field. Kind of strange way to end the season considering they were just scratching the surface of social justice/PC bullshit. Anyone think they might have been attacked or caved to some sort of pressure from the higher ups? Did they finally cross a line that got them in trouble enough to rewrite the show? Comedy Central sometimes seems a bit chummy with some of the more famous faces screeching for political correctness today.

>>78330935

Oh is that what happened? They realized that trying to make the world a better place was a good thing? Good for them.

File: free speech and censorship.jpg (97KB, 513x504px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 513x504px

>>78332169
>They realized that trying to make the world a better place was a good thing?
censorship doesn't make the world a better place.

>>78332207

Criticism is free speech not censorship.

>>78332207

To clarify, they didn't pass any laws to make the game illegal. They just said it sucked. That is their right. Are some people such crybabies that they take people telling them that their stuff is offensive and begin crying censorship over it? That is laughable.

>"Oh are you sad? Are you gonna cry? Because people are mean? Wake up, the world's not some liberal arts college, moron."

File: sjws censoring vidya gaems.png (106KB, 585x575px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 585x575px

>>78332433
>>78332335
>they didn't pass any laws to make the game illegal.
You don't need to pass laws to censor things, censorship is the suppression of ideas or art.

Saying something doesn't deserve to exist isn't criticism, it's advocating censorship.

>>78329932
This.

>>78332335
It is when you gang up into a hate mob and demand your viewpoint be validated.

>>78332511

No. It's still just criticism. If companies think something offensive in a game will hurt their bottom line it is their prerogative to change it.

>>78332544

So when a lot of people have the same thing to say it's suddenly a bad thing?

>>78331318
I laughed my ass off any I've never even held a gun. The dog show comparison was a stroke of comedic genius.

File: well its okay to censor games but not books.jpg (623KB, 996x929px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 996x929px

>>78332573
>This game is bad because (reasons). You shouldn't play it.
That's criticism.

>This game is harmful to society because (reasons). It shouldn't exist.
That's advocating censorship.

Learn the difference.

>>78332581
When it suppresses the free expression of ideas and art?

Yes.

>>78332610

No. You can still say something is so bad that it should not exist. I have said many times that Jurassic World should not exist. I guess I was censoring the filmmakers then, huh?

Also, why did you post that image? Are you saying that people should not say that games or books are sexist? Isn't that censorship according to you?

>>78332585
>I've never even held a gun.

You're missing out, they're pretty cool. If you live in America you have no reason not to find a range that rents(or go with friends that have their own)and try it at least once.

>>78332624

If a company thinks that enough people are offended by something that it will harm them or their image then they have every right not release something. Free market.

>>78330935
I don't think that is the case at all. Listen to PC Principal's end speech about how PC was not being PC to be PC.

>>78332573
>If companies think something offensive in a game will hurt their bottom line it is their prerogative to change it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
>Self-censorship can also occur in order to conform to the expectations of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may consciously or unconsciously avoid topics that will anger advertisers, customers, or the owners in order to protect her or his livelihood either directly (i.e., fear of losing his job) or indirectly (e.g., a belief that a book will be more profitable if it does not contain offensive material).

>>78332610

Are you saying that there are no articles about sexist books? They do exist you know. People complain about sexism in books all the time. Analyzing social themes in an artwork is to be expected. You can't claim that games are art and then cry foul when they are held to the same standard.

File: 1434853266369.jpg (29KB, 409x353px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 409x353px

>>78329364
>Now that the dust has settled

>>78332700
>shilling for the gun industry

>>78332740

And? How is that wrong? These are businesses trying to make a profit. You can't have racist rants in popular news sites for this very reason. If one company won't publish a game, article, or release a movie you go to one that will or you go independent.

File: PC.png (164KB, 361x312px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 361x312px

>>78332335
>>78332433
Censorship isn't what the bloggers and twitterfags did. They don't have that power, you're right, but it was their intent, it has always been that. They happily admit they bitch about this stuff so that there is a change. Not wanting to deal with the mob, DoA wasn't over, essentially giving the mob what they wanted in the end which was removal of the "offensive" material. Is that censorship? No, at least not by action, it is however censorship by outcome.
This is getting into a semantics argument though, so if you want a better example how about the fact that there is now a smaller campaign being aimed at PlayAsia for daring to sell an english version to the states with the company being threatened by some users. Outright threatening someone to not sell something you don't like IS censorship, or at least an attempt at it. Unless you subscribe to movieblob/Jim's definition of the word in which they say shit like "only the government can censor things".

>>78332791
>I want to talk about something slightly old/irrelevant

>>78332672
>I have said many times that Jurassic World should not exist.
Did you actively try to get Jurassic World pulled from theaters? Did you try to get Chris Pratt fired from the production? Because that's what SJWs do. Hell, just yesterday they got a video game pulled from Steam.

>Are you saying that people should not say that games or books are sexist?
The image is showing how absurd it is that people are calling harmless volleyball games a menace to society that need to be purged, while no one would ever say the same thing about a book, even one far more risque than the volleyball game.

>>78332812
>implying I am a shill

I wish I was, I'd be making more money than I am now, probably get some free guns and accessories out of the deal too.

>>78332834
>They happily admit they bitch about this stuff so that there is a change.

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with that.

>Outright threatening someone to not sell something you don't like IS censorship

Are they making actual threats other than some sort of boycott? Then that is very wrong. No one should support that.

>>78332854
>The image is showing how absurd it is that people are calling harmless volleyball games a menace to society that need to be purged, while no one would ever say the same thing about a book, even one far more risque than the volleyball game.

They can say what they like. It has been said about that particular book many, many times before.

File: boogieman strikes again.png (1MB, 1032x1291px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1032x1291px

>>78332703
>they have every right not release something.
That's not the point. The point is these companies shouldn't be terrified of a social justice retaliation in the first place. They're being bullied out of the western market by the PC-police, and that is censorship.

>>78332819
>If one company won't publish a game, article, or release a movie you go to one that will or you go independent.
I guess that works of everything was public domain and copyright/liencing wasn't a thing.

>>78332901
>Yes. And there is nothing wrong with that.
So if everyone rallied around to kill all blacks in the US, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that?

>>78332938
>They can say what they like.
And I'm saying that they're advocating censorship by saying those things.

File: 1449789925662.jpg (1MB, 1166x1999px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1166x1999px

>Bob A and Bob B are playing a card game
>Bob C comes in and demands the first two Bobs play the game differently to suit his own needs
>When Bob A refuses to do so and brings up the fact he has an issue with the fact Bob C is trying to force them to change
for his own needs, Bob D comes by and says "Wow Bob A and Bob C are equally as bad in this situation"

This is reality.

>>78332854

>implying no one has ever called Lolita smutty, horrible filth

I cannot even begin with you.

nah I loved it

>>78332947

The real point is that companies are pussies. Companies, university administrators, etc. Ultimately they sell out and cave to pressure (that doesn't even matter) immediately.

File: SJW harassment agendas oh my.png (70KB, 609x442px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 609x442px

>>78332901
>Are they making actual threats other than some sort of boycott?

Pan Games received death threats and threats of legal action just yesterday and pulled their game from Steam out of intimidation. Pic related is from a different incident.

>>78332979

It's free speech to say it. You can such sites everywhere.

>>78332983

Aren't you advocating censorship by saying that they should not say those things?

>>78333016
and when these things happen we shouldn't blame the pussies for pussing out, we should blame the root of the cause, the SJWs who want everything censored.

>>78333033
I don't think you understand free speech.
They have the right to say anything they want, sure, but that doesn't make what they're saying right.

>>78332979

Wow you're getting pretty desperate. I disagree with what you say but I will defend the right to say it.

>>78333138
We're having two different conversations.

>>78332947

Companies have finally realized that women make up half of their audience and don't want to alienate the market. It's just good business sense.

File: joe-Clinton,_Hillary-small.jpg (10KB, 220x328px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x328px

>Expressing an opinion
Not censorship.

>Engaging in a campaign to pressure an individual or group to conform to your opinions
Not exactly censorship, but still shitty.

>Petitioning the government to ban certain types of art
Censorship.

This shit ain't hard people.

>>78333085

And you don't have to agree with SJWs either. But they have every right to call something sexist.

>>78333171
Please provide some evidence that women make up half the console market.
All you have are statistics that include farmvil/candy crush players, which are not relevant when talking about Street Fighter and the like.

>>78333177
What's with this myth that only the government can censor?

File: uwut.jpg (14KB, 224x208px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 224x208px

>>78333188
I never said they don't.

>>78333058
I think it's absurd that these people are pushing for censorship of games media and then saying "it's not censorship." They demand things get changed, they're changed, and then they throw up their hands and say, "I didn't do it! Don't blame me!"

I just want them to own up to what they're doing, which they adamantly refuse to do.

Here's how you know the libertarians in this thread are stupid

They're saying censorship is unilaterally bad, while posting on /co/ which is censored up the ass regarding what you can or cannot post here

If you really want to see a world without censorship, go to /b/ or /trash/

and don't come back

>>78333171
>your game sells better in the west than in the east
>lets not release it at all in the west because of SJWs
>good business sense

>>78333177
>suppressing the free expression of ideas and art
Censorship. Government intervention has nothing to do with it. Don't believe me? Check a dictionary.

>>78333227
>They're saying censorship is unilaterally bad, while posting on /co/ which is censored up the ass regarding what you can or cannot post here

That makes no sense.

>You live in a country that has censorship, therefore you're a hypocrite if you don't like censorship

>>78333192

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/gaming-and-gamers/

>A nearly identical share of men and women report ever playing video games (50% of men and 48% of women).

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/

>42 percent of the study's respondents who had game systems — such as "Xboxes and PlayStations," the report says —identified as female. A slightly lower number of men claimed to have their own consoles — 37 percent.

>>78333211

They convinced them to change things. It is still not censorship.

File: 4rdOcQasKart.878x0.Z-Z96KYq.jpg (16KB, 878x494px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 878x494px

>>78333269
>42 percent of the study's respondents who had game systems — such as "Xboxes and PlayStations," the report says —identified as female. A slightly lower number of men claimed to have their own consoles — 37 percent.

Ahem.

>>78333250
Well you're a hypocrite if you genuinely enjoy the benefits of censorship while simultaneously decrying its evils, aren't you?

Again, why are you posting on /co/ instead of /trash/?

Why don't you go start this discussion on /trash/ and see how much better things are in that environment than here

Go on, and link the thread, I'd enjoy seeing it

>>78333248
>your game sells better in the west than in the east
>lets not release it at all in the west because of SJWs

Can't blame anyone but themselves for being morons.

File: pangames1.png (336KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1920x1080px

>>78333282
>convinced

>>78333269
>Owning
Keyword.
I know over a dozen women who own consoles, either, usually for their kids or got it as a gift.
Not to mention the millions of mothers and grandmothers (mine included) who own Wii's for the sport games and such.

>>78333291
The issue with posting in /trash/ would be the fact it's a small board, go ahead and make /co/ or /v/ or /a/ or /m/ rule free, I don't mind.
I don't enjoy the site being censored, I unfortunately have to just deal with it.

>>78333300

If death threats were used then of course that's wrong.

>>78333319
You believe this board would be better with no rules?

really?

>>78333333
/a/ was a great board when it was allowed to self moderate, it only went to shit when moot/mods stepped in and made them allow shit like Naruto and the like.

>>78333333
When the mods were a lot less up tight about nudity and threads weren't pigeonholed into generals were good times.

File: image.jpg (110KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x500px

>>78333333

>>78333357
self-moderation is still a form of rules and censorship.

Just because it's being done by the most vocal people instead of a figurehead doesn't make it something different

Again, /trash/ is a place where you can post whatever you want. No one's forcing you to be on /co/ if you hate censorship so much. Go to your paradise, it's right there.

Or maybe you realize that rules and censorship can actually be a good thing

File: 1a2.jpg (10KB, 215x268px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 215x268px

>>78333333
Thread over.

It's okay though, it was shit anyway.

>>78333392
>self-moderation is still a form of rules and censorship.
Nope. No one is taking away their ability to say it.
Also please stop acting like rules and censorship are inherently the same.
There's a difference between making murder illegal (a rule) and trying to get to burn down a business because they released a video game with girls in bikinis

>>78333333
>without censorship we would have anarchy

>>78333423
>>78333444
>still posting on /co/ instead of /trash/

Keep voluntarily enjoying the benefits of censorship while talking about how eeEEEEEEVIL it is

File: sdfsdf.png (820KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 800x600px

>>78333333
>no this place and other boards becoming general circle jerks is a GOOD thing

This, my friends, is what is known as a rulekuck

He will let others decide for him what he should be allowed to post, he will let himself be censored if he can not look at posts he doesn't like. Truly a strange creature.

>>78333282
changing things by censoring them.

>>78329364
I still can't believe it was the season finale
It felt like it still had a couple episodes in it

Can someone tell me when The Stick of Truth takes place?

Also I just got it today and I'm fucking loving it. It's the only game where I can beat a burning mongolian to death as he pukes on my farts.

>>78333894
It's set after season 17, I'm pretty sure. It's definitely set some time after season 16 because Clyde's mum is dead.

>>78330935

I'm not completely sure if it was bait and switch, but they definitely took the easy way out. They shifted the blame to something that is universally despised, and gave a pass to people whose ideologies they are clearly not fond of for the sake of convenience. People are the problem. It's marketers who react and pander. They've got the entire thing backward.

>>78329364
>>78331876
it's not left field or incoherent, you just don't see the larger picture. Ads are automatons, the frontier of AI, and automation has been making human labor irrelevant ever since Don Quixote tilted at windmills (the first form of automation). Gentrification is what happen when the poorest get the short end of the stick (such as Kenny) when it comes to reaping the rewards of automation, and stupid people end up blaming immigrants for the job loss from automation, the only people who win are those who such on the ad machines tits (such as Nathan). One of the consequences was the news media becoming super polarized with clickbait articles for/against SJW, riding the newest cultural divide, thus PC becoming co-opted by the ad machine (with no-filters such as Donald Trump on the other side of the clickbait complex). As humans are priced out of existence by wealth inequality, nobody can afford the products that are made.

In the end, Parker and Stone take a subtle approach towards PC, that despite the problems of it, some degree or semblance of it is needed as we can't just fall to the whims of our biased emotions and wind up mislead by someone like Trump. Although this season, they didn't have the enough time to more fully expound on this theme.

>>78332207
Based as fuck.
That made me want to replay Alice games.

>>78332819
>And? How is that wrong? These are businesses trying to make a profit. You can't have racist rants in popular news sites for this very reason. If one company won't publish a game, article, or release a movie you go to one that will or you go independent.

Not that anon, but the problem with self-censorship is that it's rarely a response to market demands, but rather a response to powerful people.

You can have ten thousand people who love something, and one rich trust-fund baby with connections can override all their opinions and force the creator to "self-censor" under threat of public defamation.