| ▲ | mywittyname a day ago |
| They have not changed. They still maintain this "enlightened centrist" persona, while claiming "both sides are the same". And their social commentary, if you could call it that, is very tame. They did briefly lean into making politicians out to be evil, but they kind of walked that back and now their story lines read more goofy than anything. The whole premise of the new season is telling. It's not about the suffering people have gone through due to wars (trade or military) or the food situation (the diarrhea parasite / cancer beef ep writes itself). Nope, it's about how the silly goose in office is renaming stuff. It's possible to be serious and funny, but the new stuff I've seen has been unserious and unfunny. |
|
| ▲ | Whoppertime 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If they are centrist and treating both sides the same, what are your favorite Joe Biden jokes from South Park?
Given the number of Trump jokes and the both sidesism you mentioned there should be a lot of material to work with |
|
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >They did briefly lean into making politicians out to be evil, Shame. I wonder if they got "talked to." |
|
| ▲ | EA-3167 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-... How is that not changing? |
| |
| ▲ | CobrastanJorji 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | Gud 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | psd1 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? | |
| ▲ | conorcleary 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | Gud 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | If Gore had built a floating castle in the sky, a one off magical house, I’d say, he’s alright |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gjsman-1000 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Well, I think both sides are the same to an uncomfortable degree. To quote Bill Maher: “Trump has renamed Lake Ontario to the Lake of America. Of course, the left knows you can’t just rename things for political gain, just ask any Latinx birthing person.” |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Really bad example by Maher. There are much better examples where the 2 parties are frustratingly aligned to a large extent. For example, datacenters, ICE, and foreign policy. You can find a good number of democrats who are mad about Iran not because it's a dumb war, but because it wasn't done correctly by going through congress. Both sides are aligned pretty closely in making their donors happy above their voters. That keeps democrats from regulating like they should and it keeps republicans focused on "the enemies within". | | |
| ▲ | laimewhisps 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maher himself is a perfect example of this. He's a hardcore Zionist warhawk who has an ideology nearly identical to Ted Cruz, yet he's a "liberal" (neoliberal). He also had Democrat Van Jones on his show making fun of dead Gaza babies. While I don't think the media and politician class represent the public (at all!), they are as aligned as lasers on promoting Israel. |
| |
| ▲ | kg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | His examples don't hold up. Latinx is attempting to provide an umbrella term for latino and latina, it's not renaming one of the two. "Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. (You can express your own feelings about the reality that this exists, but it does exist regardless of how you feel about it). On the other hand Lake Ontario is a real lake that already had a name and now someone is trying to give it a new one. | | |
| ▲ | jackp96 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Largely agree with you, but Democrats should drop "birthing persons" ASAP (if they haven't already) IMO. I'm all for inclusivity, but there's a certain point/form of language policing where you're asking folks to perform a lot of mental labor to adjust their language to reflect an extremely rare edge case. Like why? It's like if we insisted that people avoid the phrase "look at this" in general communication lest you offend/exclude a blind person who might be listening. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Democrats should drop "birthing persons" I've never heard 1 democrat politician say "birthing person". This was never something "democrats" said and always something that rightwing media says that Democrats say. There's nothing to drop or defend as this is completely a distraction from real issues. Basically, rightwing media LOVES picking fringe individuals pushing a position and pretending like every democrat actually believes the same. | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also, there's no such thing as being able to give birth and not being female. Many argue that "woman" refers to an internal sense of gender and not the physical reality of one's body, but even in that framework the term "female" refers to the nature of the body. And if you can give birth, you are female, because that is the configuration your body is in. | | |
| |
| ▲ | badc0ffee 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You definitely need to be female to give birth, regardless of whatever gender identity label you give yourself (e.g. "man" or "non binary"). | | |
| ▲ | optionalsquid 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That was conclusively disproven by Schwarzenegger et al., 1994. | | |
| ▲ | nosioptar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Our education system has failed younger generations. Everyone my age watched the documentary about Schwarzenegger's pregnancy. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh yeah? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/ | | |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you want your mind-blown, read up on feto-maternal microchimerism: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/ tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270 | | |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | yeah I knew that already - I have a son and it was mentioned as a fun fact along the way |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kg 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you want to provide appropriate care to people with wombs you don't want to filter based on what their drivers' license or birth certificate say, because those can not only defy your expectations, but they can also be wrong due to clerical errors or other factors. I can't even humor your assumption that there are only two sexes and one birthing sex, because intersexed people exist, as do people with unusual chromosomes. Some of them have wombs and can give birth. Language like "birthing persons", while awkward, admits the existence of those people into a larger group without requiring even more awkward phrasing akin to "women, and men with wombs, and intersexed people with wombs". | | |
| ▲ | what 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Intersex and chromosomal disorders don’t change the sexual binary. They aren’t some weird other sex. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nostrademons 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Latinx is terrible, though, because it is something no native Spanish speaker would ever say. It's an example of the exact same sort of cultural imperialism that most of the people who like to say latinx rail against. The term that Hispanic queer and non-binary communities use is latine, which is pronounceable, follows normal Spanish grammatical rules, actually arose from the communities being discussed, and pluralizes easily to "les latines". | | |
| ▲ | plorkyeran 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's almost like it's not a Spanish word. It was coined by native English speakers to describe themselves. It also happens to be a terrible English word, but the fact that it doesn't work in a different language's grammar isn't why it's a bad English word. | | |
| |
| ▲ | what 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > "Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. There is no person that can give birth and is not female. | |
| ▲ | sphinxterai 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | jackp96 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Eh, it's a decent joke, but it seems like the power dynamics here are a bit out of balance? Maybe I just live in a red area, but I see a lot of people judge liberals based on wild Twitter takes and random think pieces — which aren't actually policies/rule of law. If Joe Biden signed an EO denouncing the use of the phrase "pregnant woman" in government documents as a queerphobic slur or mandating Gov employees add their pronouns to their email signatures, I'd find this take more compelling. But he didn't. | | |
| ▲ | matwood 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You reminded me that I had a person at work get mad that I used the phrase “9 women can’t have a baby in 1 month”. They couldn’t explain why other than I’m a man and can’t talk about women. So it’s not wild Twitter takes. | |
| ▲ | _3u10 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | _3u10 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|