*1004: Cartoon Wars Part II*

Discuss new episodes without ruining them for people in other time zones.

Moderator: Big-Will

hainted

Postby hainted » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:58 pm

I am totally vindicated.

I was flamed,so I had a right to blow up about it.

Don't flame me,attack me personally,insult me and then call me immature.Do you meet perfect strangers in real life and just start attacking them personally? No,because you are going to run into someone who isn't going to want to take your sh*t.

Grow up you idiots.

I was flamed by Iceiywind or whatever his/her name is and the post right after that by gmac also was a clear flame when gmac called me a prick.

Neither one of them had a right to insult me personally or to attack me.I wasn't doing anything any differently than many people on here have been doing,commenting on the current controversies surrounding South Park and talking about CENSORSHIP!

The personal attacks are really immature and it's real bullsh*t that the mods aren't here sitting on you like a 400 pound gorilla.

Alot of you just need to grow up and realise that you are just plain flat wrong.The flaming and the personal attacks are what fvck up discussions and start flame wars.If you jerks acted like that in real life to the wrong person it could get you killed.I suggest you grow some fvcking balls and stop being smartass little juvenile pre-pubers,m'kay?

Don't attack people personally and you won't get attacked back.

Treat people like you yourself would like to be treated...

Is that so hard?
cartman8213
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:32 pm

Postby cartman8213 » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:09 am

hainted wrote:I am totally vindicated.

I was flamed,so I had a right to blow up about it.

Don't flame me,attack me personally,insult me and then call me immature.Do you meet perfect strangers in real life and just start attacking them personally? No,because you are going to run into someone who isn't going to want to take your sh*t.

Grow up you idiots.

I was flamed by Iceiywind or whatever his/her name is and the post right after that by gmac also was a clear flame when gmac called me a prick.

Neither one of them had a right to insult me personally or to attack me.I wasn't doing anything any differently than many people on here have been doing,commenting on the current controversies surrounding South Park and talking about CENSORSHIP!

The personal attacks are really immature and it's real bullsh*t that the mods aren't here sitting on you like a 400 pound gorilla.

Alot of you just need to grow up and realise that you are just plain flat wrong.The flaming and the personal attacks are what fvck up discussions and start flame wars.If you jerks acted like that in real life to the wrong person it could get you killed.I suggest you grow some fvcking balls and stop being smartass little juvenile pre-pubers,m'kay?

Don't attack people personally and you won't get attacked back.

Treat people like you yourself would like to be treated...

Is that so hard?

Do you notice that nobody is on your side?
Officially blending in with all the Cartman fans.
Image
Image
Thanks b489 and KTS for sig
Alex__W
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:45 am

Postby Alex__W » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:10 am

But they did show muhammed, look in the opening to the show with all the characters, muhammed is hidden in the middle-to-middle right.

Don't know if someone mentioned this, lemme try to find a picture.

Here:
http://img102.imageshack.us/my.php?image=southparkseason10opening2cr.png

Edit: my bad, apparently people already know about it. Apparently he's been in there for awhile.
BlythyVXR
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:22 pm

Postby BlythyVXR » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:19 am

NUKE CANADA AND THE ENGLAND!!!!!


you're right, you should feel totally vindicated.

btw, thank you for calling us "the" england. It makes us proud.
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Postby Big-Will » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:29 am

cartman8213 wrote:Do you notice that nobody is on your side?

That's not why you post here. You post here to get your viewpoint across. If other people agree with you, great. :)
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
ShaneHaughey
Posts: 11192
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Postby ShaneHaughey » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:43 am

hainted wrote:I am totally vindicated.

I was flamed,so I had a right to blow up about it.

Don't flame me,attack me personally,insult me and then call me immature.Do you meet perfect strangers in real life and just start attacking them personally? No,because you are going to run into someone who isn't going to want to take your sh*t.

Grow up you idiots.

I was flamed by Iceiywind or whatever his/her name is and the post right after that by gmac also was a clear flame when gmac called me a prick.

Neither one of them had a right to insult me personally or to attack me.I wasn't doing anything any differently than many people on here have been doing,commenting on the current controversies surrounding South Park and talking about CENSORSHIP!

The personal attacks are really immature and it's real bullsh*t that the mods aren't here sitting on you like a 400 pound gorilla.

Alot of you just need to grow up and realise that you are just plain flat wrong.The flaming and the personal attacks are what fvck up discussions and start flame wars.If you jerks acted like that in real life to the wrong person it could get you killed.I suggest you grow some fvcking balls and stop being smartass little juvenile pre-pubers,m'kay?

Don't attack people personally and you won't get attacked back.

Treat people like you yourself would like to be treated...

Is that so hard?


Ice didn't flame you. Gmac did, so your problem should have been with Gmac and Gmac alone. You over-reacted. If anyone has been a complete jerk, it has been Gmac and YOU. Ice didn't flame you. Get over it and grow up.
That's how it's down here on the farm!
pitchblank
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:45 pm

Postby pitchblank » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:28 am

BlythyVXR wrote:
NUKE CANADA AND THE ENGLAND!!!!!


you're right, you should feel totally vindicated.

btw, thank you for calling us "the" england. It makes us proud.


I take it he intends to spare "the" Scotland and "the" Wales from the nukefest, then?
hainted

Postby hainted » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:39 am

Big-Will wrote:
cartman8213 wrote:Do you notice that nobody is on your side?

That's not why you post here. You post here to get your viewpoint across. If other people agree with you, great. :)



And if they disagree with you great.But there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's point and belittling them and insulting them and attacking them personally and flaming them. Especially when they aren't doing anything differently or saying anything differently than a whole bunch of other people here.

The unprovoked personal attacks and flames are really juvenile regardless of how you cleverly conceal them and the smugness and smarminess and hypocrisy of the way some here will single you out when there are 30 pages worth of posts where you can find similar targets just shows that their stupid little personal attacks are personal.

Well I guess since flaming seems so readilly allowed here and that the flamee is way more likely to incur the wrath of people around here,then I might as well just flame at will and be the one to actually start it for a change since I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't,so f*ck it.These boards are kind of a joke then aren't they?
ShaneHaughey
Posts: 11192
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Postby ShaneHaughey » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:50 am

I've posted my thoughts on this subject several times, so I assume Hainted has just blocked me. Oh well.
That's how it's down here on the farm!
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:20 am

I see hainted as Christophe in the live-action version.
Olivia42
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:03 pm

Postby Olivia42 » Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:37 am

Alright, this little flamewar aside, I have (yet) more to say, and in doing so, I may just disagree with something stated in South Park, so be warned.

I disagree with censorship of ideas. It doesn't matter whether it's a protest statement, an image of a religious figure, or even blatent racism. We don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean someone else can't express it.

Now, even though I agree on the issue, I agree for totally different reasons as stated in South Park and held by most members of this board. Censoring one thing, pulling one episode, blocking out one image will not lead to more things being censored. This is a textbook slippery slope, and a fallicious argument. The reason it is wrong is not what it may lead to, but what it simply is. It is wrong on a basic level of moral freedom that we in western society value. Nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, terrorism is merely a political term which has grown to be so generalized(1) that people, be it Matt and Trey or people right here on the BBS, have stretched to mean anything from a vague threat to in any way exerting real power. What we now call terrorism in Iraq is otherwise called guerilla warfare. Holding a gun up to your head and telling you to do something is not terrorism. Widespread illegal threats or actual violence with a means to specifically change something about a government or society is terrorism.(2) This irked me during the episode.

(1) A similar mutation has happened in this particular community with the word "spam."

(2) Ironically, this definition, paraphrased from the Patriot Act, was criticized for being so vague as to include socially accepted groups like Greenpeace. I don't care what you say about these "hippies," they are not terrorists.
.
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:00 am

aeb1barfo wrote:They just didn't make it as PUBLIC as Tom and Dick did.

I'm guessing (feel free to rebut) that Laugh-In's censorship problems were more about taste than politics -- it was years later that All in the Family made news with the offscreen sound of a flushing toilet, which shows how squeamish the networks were at the time.

But before we get into a drool-off...

I have here the June 24, 1969, issue of Look magazine, featuring a cover story about the Smothers Brothers -- just after CBS canceled them. (Story written by Nat Hentoff, by the way.)

Tommy was the militant one, and I just stumbled across a quote that bears directly on the issue at hand:

"What I'm saying is that anticipatory censorship is an infringement of my rights. Let us produce our show. Then, if there are any gray areas, let each affiliate decide. They're the licensees. We'd prefer no censorship at all, but let them edit, if they feel the need to, with regard to regional tastes. The airways, however, should not belong to just three men who run the acceptance departments of the three networks."

Obvious differences aside, what strikes me are the similarities with the present moment. When the corporation owns the show, whose free speech is it, anyway?
pitchblank
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:45 pm

Postby pitchblank » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:13 am

Olivia42 wrote:Furthermore, terrorism is merely a political term which has grown to be so generalized(1) that people, be it Matt and Trey or people right here on the BBS, have stretched to mean anything from a vague threat to in any way exerting real power.


Terrorism *is* a very broad term which covers the entire spectrum between those two extremes. It's you who are trying to narrow it down. The dictionary definition is

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

It ranges from a mere threat/intimidation to actual execution, from a single person to an organized group, targeting anyone or anything from a single person to a government or an entire society, *often*, though not necessarily, for ideological or political reasons.

We commonly associate the word with acts of terrorism such as suicide bombings etc, but it's important to remember that the weight of the term lies not in the action but in the purpose. Terrorism is simply the act of invoking terror with the intent of persuading someone to back down. Terrorism exists before things get blown up, too.

For example, these French hoodlums who have been protesting the new labor laws in France. They've been rioting in the streets of Paris, turning cars over and setting them on fire, smashing windows by the hundreds and just generally raising hell. A few days ago the government caved in and did a full 180 on the new laws. So, these disgruntled youths, were they "terrorists"? No, I guess you'd call them protestors or demonstrators. And yet, what they did is by definition an act of terrorism: An organized group using unlawful violence and force against property with the intention of coercing the government into changing the law. And now that the government backed down, they know it'll work next time. This is why you must NEVER EVER back an inch when faced with terrorism. When they test the limits, be sure to let them hit a brick wall.

Terrorism was used in the protests against the Danish cartoons (organized riots, destroying embassies, issuing death threats, prices on the cartoonists' heads, demanding that all Scandinavians leave the Middle East within 48 hrs etc). And the same people are ready to do it again should they catch wind of some American cartoon show pulling the Danish stunt all over again. This standing threat is, per se, terrorism. You cross the line between peaceful rally and terrorism once you start destroying property and threatening people. I think you're doing democracy a disservice by trying to raise the bar for what qualifies as terrorism.

What we now call terrorism in Iraq is otherwise called guerilla warfare.


The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in reference to the British action in Cyprus 1956 and the war in Rhodesia 1973, so you're in good company with that observation.

Holding a gun up to your head and telling you to do something is not terrorism.


Obviously one guy holding another at gunpoint is too small an event to be called terrorism, but even more obviously, Cartman's "terrorism" here was a microlevel version of its macrolevel counterpart.
Last edited by pitchblank on Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
nojo
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:51 am

Postby nojo » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:52 am

pitchblank:

Damn, you're good.

I usually have a kneejerk reaction against resorting to the dictionary in substantive debate, but that's just the (smug alert!) Wittgenstein in me. Yours is the most cogent explanation of the issue I've seen yet, and you've managed to do it without the cultural stereotypes that tend to obscure the truth.

I want to have your baby.
PanSavant
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:40 am

Skipping the Flame wars...

Postby PanSavant » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:54 am

Ok, so I scanned the thread through the flame wars, trying to see if anyone had posted this information yet. I didn't see it, but if someone else posted something like this already I apologise in advance.

It is official, from the horses mouth, it was CC who refused to show Muhammed. Here is the email I received back from CC, snipped for brevity but not context.


Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.

With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe.

It was with this in mind we decided not to air the image of Muhammad, a decision similar to that made by virtually every single media outlet across the country earlier this year when they each determined that it was not prudent or in the interest of safety to reproduce the controversial Danish cartoons. Injuries occurred and lives were lost in the riots set off by the original publication of these cartoons. The American media made a decision then, as we did now, not to put the safety and well being of the public at risk, here or abroad.

As a viewer of "South Park," you know that over the course of ten seasons and almost 150 episodes the series has addressed all types of sensitive, hot-button issues, religious and political, and has done so with Comedy Central's full support in every instance, including this one. "Cartoon Wars" contained a very important message, one that Trey and Matt felt strongly about, as did we at the network, which is why we gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a portrayal of Muhammad.

In that regard, did we censor the show? Yes, we did. But if you hold Comedy Central's 15-year track record up against any other network out there, you'll find that we afford our talent the most creative freedom and provide a nurturing atmosphere that challenges them to be bold and daring and places them in a position to constantly break barriers and push the envelope. The result has been some of the most provocative television ever produced.

We would like nothing more than to be able to look back at this in a few years and think that perhaps we overreacted. Unfortunately, to have made a different decision and to look back and see that we completely underestimated the damage that resulted was a risk we were not willing to take.

Our pledge to you, our loyal viewers, is that Comedy Central will continue to produce and provide the best comedy available and we will continue to push it right to the edge, using and defending the First Amendment in the most responsible way we know how.

Sincerely,
Comedy Central Viewer Services


Now granted, this does not clear up the issue as to whether Muhammed was actually drawn/animated or not...but the context of this email seems to say it was made clear beforehand that it wouldn't be shown:


...which is why we gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a portrayal of Muhammad.



Anyways, just thought I would share
[now up to six cents worth]

Return to “Spoilers/New Episode Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests