South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
readtrung.com
readtrung.com
> [Parker and Stone]’s lawyer, Kevin Morris, insisted that any South Park revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel would go into the pot for calculating the men’s share of back-end profits.
Though that might be a precursor to enabling this (400 words later):
> With negotiating leverage, Parker and Stone agreed to a 4-year $75 million deal and, separately, a 50/50 cut of advertising revenue for any digital property…in perpetuity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.ht...
This is what enabled them to stream it online themselves from a dedicated website for years though.
more futuristic, i think any profit that is not reinvested into the business, that is, any profit that the owners decide to keep for themselves should be shared in some form with all employees, like a tax.
“A cut of revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel” went from “meaningless” to “huge significance” to “boner-inducing” arguably the greatest clause ever in TV contract history…at a minimum, it’s one of the most improbable all things considered.
So whether they donate or not personally, their billionaire status is based on owning their company (ie that is their total worth, not liquid assets).
I'm not judging, I'm wondering.
A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.
If you make them cut their assets down to $100 million each then they don't own South Park. And someone else gets to tell them what to write. Or they retire.
So I wonder if the government could levy a stock tax, in which every public stock was diluted by 1% per year, with non-voting stock going into a sovereign wealth fund. This would make for a gradual transition of companies from capitalist-owned to public-owned.
I believe that the best amount of processes for revoking ownership not zero. Revoking not as in "we take n money from you because...", but as in "we stop respecting any of your accumulated ownership rights, but you are free to accumulate new ones". A reset like the one called bankruptcy, just for positives.
Currently, in countries that do have the death sentence, ownership is even more untouchable than life. A (hypothetical..) rich person on death row you could still write their will and it would be respected. People will argue "don't punish the children!", but where's the difference really, between "don't gamble it all away, for the sake of your children" and "don't end up on death row, for the sake of your children"? Apparently, ownership is more sacred than life itself and I find that quite hard to stomach.
Note that I'm not advocating for a world where it's common for rich persons to get stripped whenever the masses get a little envious, or whenever redistribution seems convenient. Just for ac world where there is some last resort process defined and accepted that's less bloody than an all-out revolution. Ancient Rome had certain forms of exilation that went with complete property forfeitment as punishment (in reality: as the price for losing a power struggle I guess)
But once you have that kind of fuck off money and insist on abusing your power, or kowtowing to other people to get more power, and other BS, then you are an evil asshole. There’s a good reason why Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk etc rub people the wrong way. It’s not their wealth.
Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican
Insinuating that South Park conservatives evolved into the alt-right is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Trey and Matt didn’t invent disliking political correctness.
For example, the “men’s rights activists” group appropriated the idea of “the red pill” from The Matrix. They certainly differ wildly in worldview from the Wachowski siblings.
But this is political correctness gone crazy.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-gender...
I as a Black guy was also put off by the forced indoctrination that BigTech did post 2020 (when I worked there) with all of the “ally ship”, “DEI” crap I had to endure. I just wanted to do my job, get my money, get my RSUs and bounce after 4 years.
Here's another example of political correctness going too far, this time related to tech.
https://www.aswf.io/inclusive-language-guide/
Apparently "native support" is offensive.
If the legal language mandates an equal split between men and women, where could that possibly leave non-binary people, other than without representation, right?
I’m curious especially as a black guy, why this wouldn’t land for you. Imagine a legal body obligated to be composed of equal representation, racially, that explicitly requires white, brown, red, and yellow members - but doesn’t mention black.
That hardly sounds fair, does it? So why deride efforts to institutionalize inclusivity, integration, and equal representation as ‘crazy?’
The UK for example doesnt legally recognise a non binary gender or sex.
I would think it was just as crazy if the committee had language around they must have an equal number of Black and White members and if one person was a biracial …
If they had a committee focused on women’s health issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, should they include transgender women?
What happens in the case where they want equal representation if my mom had a Black father and White mother and my dad had an Hispanic father and Japanese mother?
But from a real politick angle, this was dumb and cringy knowing the mood of the majority of Americans. The job is to win elections. Bill Clinton invented the “Sister Souljah” moment and Obama followed suit by distancing himself from the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson wing of the party.
A lot of moderate Democrats and Republicans who have no issue respecting anyone for whatever life they decide to live, find that the left has gone too far.
As much as I distrust the police and the entire justice system for instance, I thought the phrase “defund the police” went too far and I understood the point they were making underneath.
It’s the same with enforced (he/him) labels on everyone and having to be really sure you aren’t accused of being some type of “ist” because you only speak in “heteronormative terms”.
If (hypothetical) you want to call out your preferred pronouns, go for it and I’ll respect them.
It is a sign that you aren’t really resistant to the ideas but looking for a way to resist because it’s change.
> if they had a committee focused on women’s health issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, should they include transgender women?
This is the entire problem with the “this has gone too far” crowd. You’re making up hypotheticals and claiming them as active truths. In your situation it’s pretty clear humans are capable of forming committee's relevant to the topic. You don’t have to over apply policy to make it fair. Furthermore, most of these types of committees are probably and have been historically staffed by white men. Why do they get a double standard?
Was anyone actually negatively affected by DEI policies? No. You just had a bunch of handwringing from “this is too far people” and executive leadership teams. No one has actually any proof of these so called negatives though. So much so they have black people saying “let the white man handle it again”.
> In your situation it’s pretty clear humans are capable of forming committee's relevant to the topic
You mean the same humans who are fighting to allow biological men in women’s sports?
The midsize company in the same vertical I work for now (cloud consulting) focuses almost purely on how much money we made, this is how it affects your bonus and this is what you can do to increase our profits - no ally ship, no “celebrating diversity” (for people who haven’t been keeping up, I’m black), no “you must label your profile with your preferred pronouns” nonsense. I go to work to collect a check. It’s not a social mission. I don’t go to talk about systemic racism, police brutality, etc.
But they do have Juneteenth as a company holiday, offer classes and reimbursements for our LatAm employees to become better English speakers because it’s a requirement to be promoted to the higher level positions that are customer facing and offer English speakers the chance to take Spanish classes (I’m currently around an A2 proficiency).
DEI is harming people because of the silly “right speech” like not saying “pow wow” or “war room” turns people off and has them voting for politicians that don’t serve your interest and actively harm you.
How the heck did Democrats go so far that even Hispanics Americans are increasingly voting Republican?
That issue affects less than 1% of people. And was used by to rile you up to make you think an entire nation cared about very few incidents across the Us. Can you name one trans-athlete case that affected your athletic ability and career?
DEI didn’t negatively affect you. You just wanted to jump on the anti-woke train. How about you have life so good that you have nothing better to do than get angry at passive policies that were barely enforced and didn’t even affect you.
I am still waiting for the evidence of the crimes committed against people through DEI policies. Where are the victims? There are none because you drink the kool-aid rather than getting informed.
People are going to still correct your speech. That was happening before DEI policies. In fact I think you’re conflating DEI with political correctness.
Again DEI policies weren’t implemented to the extreme you are claiming to have experienced. They were barely implemented before being rolled back.
> no ally ship, no “celebrating diversity” (for people who haven’t been keeping up, I’m black), no “you must label your profile with your preferred pronouns” nonsense.
None of those things you listed are either DEI policies or negatives either. They are corporate programs, none specified in the frameworks of DEI. At worst they are perhaps a little annoying.
It wasn’t just hispanics that threw the election it was hispanics and blacks. Again you’re uninformed and looking to blame some other group of people. Classic American.
Well, if you really want to go down the road of not caring about issues that only affect 1% of the people in the US, the percentage of people who identify as trans or non binary is around 2%. That’s not a road I’m willing to go down.
> Can you name one trans-athlete case that affected your athletic ability and career?
On the same note, if I should only care about issues that affect me as a decently high earning individual, who is 50 and whose wife is also 50 with grown kids, that means I shouldn’t care about reproductive rights, universal healthcare, a social safety net, affordable higher education…
As much as people threaten to leave the US if things go south, I actually have an exit plan. We are going to start spending a few months in Costa Rica every year starting next year and have looked at becoming permanent residence. My Spanish is around A2 proficiency now.
We’ve done the digital nomad thing domestically for a year before. We aren’t new to it. It’s kid about me.
> DEI didn’t negatively affect you. You just wanted to jump on the anti-woke train. How about you have life so good that you have nothing better to do than get angry at passive policies that were barely enforced and didn’t even affect you.
No matter how good my life is (and it is very good), I worried all of the time about my 6 foot 2 step son getting harassed by the police because he didn’t look like he belong in the suburbs we lived in (where I by myself made over twice the median household because I was working remotely for BigTech) that was a famous sun down town as recently as the mid 80s.
Yeah I lived here until 2 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0). We never had an issue. But let’s just say when I walked into the high school to pick my son up, they knew exactly who he was because he was only one of three black guys in the entire school.
> I am still waiting for the evidence of the crimes committed against people through DEI policies. Where are the victims? There are none because you drink the kool-aid rather than getting informed.
The victims right now are the entire country because moderate Americans were so turned off they voted before Trump.
> People are going to still correct your speech. That was happening before DEI policies. In fact I think you’re conflating DEI with political correctness.
It was the corporate enforced DEI mandates that got you chastised if you said “you guys” to a mixed group of people (even though women used the term too) and said that you had to put your preferred pronouns on your profile.
Like I said, at my current company the entire focus of the quarterly all hands is the business and how they make money and how it affects my money. That’s all I have ever cared about when I have gone to work for 10 jobs over 30 years.
> It wasn’t just hispanics that threw the election it was hispanics and blacks. Again you’re uninformed and looking to blame some other group of people. Classic American.
I’m not blaming Hispanics, I’m blaming policies and speech by Democrats who have made the democratic brand toxic.
You have no hard data on this toxicity or victims of DEI because it’s coming from the side criticizing it. The pendulum will soon swing the other way soon.
Being against DEI policies because you don’t like all non-occurring hypotheticals and random social causes you can tie to it is the exact thing you’re complaining about “governing by feelings” not policies. These policies hurt your feelings.
The fact that you’re not willing to say “okay this was fair about the intent of DEI however we should work to improve these parts” is proof your understanding is shallow and uneducated on the topic.
You think DEI is dead but we will keep pushing for it and implementing it in other ways, other policies. Renamed, a new beast. It’s not going to stop because a large group of people can act like toddlers about it.
> It was the corporate enforced DEI mandates that got you chastised if you said “you guys” to a mixed group of people
This wasn’t the federal policy though. That is political correctness. So you’re wrong in saying it is Democrats fault. They didn’t design a policy that said “police speech” in the office. There may be extremists in Democrats and Republicans that take things to far, none of them were the people at the federal level or at the DNC. To blame the entire group of people for that is again looking to place blame on emotionally.
Which makes sense, most people haven’t read the constitution why would they read the actual text in the DEI effort.
Look up Clinton and Sister Soulja and what happened. He was a good enough politician to know that he had to distance himself from policies that the middle found offensive to win elections.
The first job is to get elected. We see the same now with what’s happening in California. Texas is gerrymandering the hell out of Texas. But Newsome is getting push back when he is trying to do the same. Republicans know how to win elections. Democrats are high on “ideals”.
I think you’re smoking something if you think Democrats are high on ideals. There is no democracy if you gerrymander out your opponent. That’s why maps are redrawn every 10 years. So Republicans aren’t winning elections for democracy or to shove it Democrats. They’re gerrymandering to remove your right to even have a choice or a democracy. You’re stuck knee deep in a culture war designed to keep you too preoccupied to see this.
Keep kicking and screaming about social posturing issues that go no where.
Gerrymandering is easy for Republicans since Democrats cluster in cities while Republicans are in rural areas and the burbs.
Democrats and leftists are high on ideals not understanding that this country has never cared about ethics or ideals. Despite what Michelle Obama says, this exactly who we are. It’s who we have been since slavery, Jim Crow laws that my still living parents grew up in, the Willie Horton ads, and the “Hatishs are eating your pets”.
Social postering hasn’t gone anywhere. In 2025, my 6 foot 2 son is still going to be looked at with suspicion by the police for living in a neighborhood “he doesn’t belong”. Even though he’s lived in the upper class burbs all of his life.
It’s Democrats focus on ideals that keeps them in the wilderness. They lost every single swing state last year. Your solution is just to do more of the same.
People just vote which ever way the economic wind blows. Trump was able to lie to a lot of people and they ate it up. That will cause the pendulum to swing back. Your suggestions about some Democrat legacy of not getting it right when they’ve mostly kept power in the last 40 years is a romanticization of these times and how you think the rest of the country operates.
It’s Republican focus on taking advantage of the lower classes that keep them in the wilderness. That’s why they’ve lost elections in previous years. Your suggestion is to just do more of the same.
Your insistence that Democrats need to just do the things Republicans means that there would be no difference between political parties.
Perhaps one is nicer than the other, but it doesn’t mean that people want meaner people governing over them. My mother votes Red every time because she’s a low information voter and believes in the Republican party because thats how she’s lived her whole life. It has nothing to do with Republicans being “clever” and willing to say “retard”.
Conservatives love the fact that Democrats won’t fight dirty and are letting states like Florida and Texas run roughshod over them and still think they are in the 60s where MLK told people if they let the police beat them long enough and march “peacefully” it will change hearts and minds. What did BLM change? What did “going high while they go low” change?
But the DNC is focused on having equal representation of males and females and making sure the right pronouns are on a committee
No they did not. DEI was one policy out of many that went through with Dems during the last admin if you think that’s all Democrats are focusing on you have drunk the Trump-brand-koolaid and have no good faith arguments here.
As for BLM it changed a A LOT. Again you are demonstrating lack of evidence and understanding of those events. I’m sure you stayed inside and criticized the people protesting. I marched during that time in Nyc. And we accomplished the following:
- Repeal 50A - a law that protected police officers at the state level from taking any legal repercussions for their actions
- Forced NYPD to stop using stop and frisk plain clothes units
- made police choking and strangleholds illegal
- force Nypd to stop using kettle tactics
- Removed the NYPD from school security duty
- spread awareness and helped change the narrative about violent police corruption
BLM was such a big deal that people like you scramble to list any benefits. This is your lack of knowledge and understanding of people that keeps you pushing for more violence. The type of cognitive dissonance that makes you say “BLM was nothing, I hated it” when that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
And since your entire argument is based around some generalization and inability to separate Potus admin from a political party. And political party from voters, I do not see any reason to continue this discussion based on false bad faith generalized premises.
Let’s look at NYC.
https://www.nyclu.org/data/stop-and-frisk-data
> While comparatively fewer stops occurred during the de Blasio administration – nearly 135,000 – enormous racial disparities have persisted every year. In 2022, the first year of the Adams administration, the NYPD made over 15,000 stops, reversing the downward trend of stops occurring during the de Blasio years. In 2024, the most recent year for which data is available, the NYPD made over 25,000 stops, a fifty percent increase from 2023 and the largest number of stops since 2014
https://policeviolencereport.org/
But Democrats still want us to sing old negro spirituals in the street like “We shall overcome” and pray that we can change hearts and minds.
You're using a completely made-up extreme example to make your point, but we're surrounded by real-world examples of free speech being heavily impacted. We don't need to invent scenarios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig
More to the point, you haven’t heard about their current season’s Trump episode?
The alt right aren’t exactly deep thinkers. It’s just like the police glorifying the Punisher.
https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-s...
Or MAGA conservatives playing “Born in the USA” without listening to the lyrics.
South Park mocks everyone.
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/15/why-south-park-is-better-ar...
The “alt-right” have always been part of America or have you never heard of Jim Crow and segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”?
Eh, I wouldn't say that. Nor would I say they were really taking a stand on climate change in the first place. They just thought it would be funny to have Al Gore tilting at windmills (and indeed it was), and then thought it would be funny to have him proven right (and indeed it was). One of the things I appreciate about Trey and Matt is that they do what they think is funny first and foremost, rather than try to make the show a mouthpiece for their beliefs as many creators do.