Hacker News Reader

Comment by EA-3167 | Hacker News Reader

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-...

How is that not changing?

See the word "rare" in the headline?

They didn't go after Gore because he was wrong. They went after him because he committed the cardinal sin of really, earnestly taking a stand on a big issue. That is NEVER okay in South Park. There is never a correct side. Both sides must always be bad, on every issue. The "correct" view in South Park is always to not really take a stance on anything, and any character who is strongly on one side or the other on any issue will always be portrayed as wrong to do so.

That's not to say that South Park doesn't have some great episodes poking fun at some very deserving targets. They absolutely do. Some real gems in recent seasons.

As an example, you do realize that in the South Park episode where Gerald starts farting into a wine glass after buying an electric car, they're not making fun of people who buy electric cars, but rather people who think they're special for having bought an electric car, right?

And with Gore, it's not that he took a huge stance, it's that his messaging was goofy and ineffective.

Satire is dead, I guess.

See Sarte on anti-Semitism: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Antisemitism and satire - famously the same thing and this is definitely not an insane comparison.

That's just it, though. The people who buy electric cars because they want to help the environment are wrong. They're only doing a good thing because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're just as bad as the polluters.

The people who want to stop smoking are wrong because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're worse than the cigarette companies.

The guy who want to help the environment is wrong because he's a self righteous prick who is full of himself.

The folks raising awareness about North Korea are wrong because raising awareness isn't actually helping people directly. It's just a bunch of self righteous pricks who are full of themselves.

Any one of those episodes has a perfectly valid point to make. But taken as a whole, the overarching message is that both sides are always bad, and the one that sounds like it wants to make the world a little better is probably worse than the evil they're opposing.

Thank you for posting exactly the hilariously wrong interpretations I'm actively speaking about.

What's wrong with my interpretation?

The premise of every single one of them is wrong because you’re depressed and projecting. You’re just so dedicated to searching for evil that you’ve completely confused “look at this goofy person” for “FUCK THIS SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK”.

Pedantry is a double-edged sword, I replied to a comment beginning with the unequivocal: "They have not changed."

In fact they've changed a lot, their sense of humor, how they make the show, their willingness to embrace a broader viewpoint, and yes their ability to admit that they screwed up something important. It may not be as much change as you'd like, but that's a different question.

Gore is a massive hypocrite and deserves the ridicule he gets.

No champion of the environment gallivants in a jet and lives in a mansion.

That's ridiculous. It is perfectly reasonable to live a normal life by the current standards of the world while advocating for political change that will change those standards to be better for the environment.

What if the mansion had balloons and the jet was grounded? /s The point of shows like SP taking on targets like Gore were their eco-shaming angles; these people we know of and hear of are polished products of Corp. Inc. and if they have a green angle it's accompanied by green-washing, which will have anti and pro groupies alongside stirring up discourse that is both helpful and non

If Gore had built a floating castle in the sky, a one off magical house, I’d say, he’s alright

Your observation of the contradiction is correct, but reductionist to a fault. If Gore would have been better than Dubya, and if campaigning requires travel, etc.

I take it you don't decry hydro for the use of concrete?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com