South Park vs Religion
 

http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/arti...21075&GT1=7703

I am seriously ticked off at Comedy Central for letting the Muslims dictate policy (make no mistake, that is truly the case here). I thought the protests over the Danish comic was over-the-top, and this is even worse. Comedy Central is run by a bunch of hypocrites and cowards.

First they pulled the Scientology episide, and now they force the show to censor out Muhammad "because Muslims find it blasphemous". How dumb.

It is really sad that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have the biggest balls in this country and seem to be in the minority for fighting for the Constitution of this country.

Hey, I'm actually glad that all of this speech oppression happened, because we got 3 damn good SP episodes out of it.

The last three (Super Adventure Club, the 2 Muhammed episodes) have made me laugh and cheer on the SP creators, as they've inserted so many jabs and references that only loyal fans and followers of the latest news stories can understand. They've made fun of themselves, too (last night, a character defended Family Guy, saying something like "I know it's just joke after joke, but I like that. It's better than seeing some preachy cartoon that shoves its message up your ass.")

Shows like this and Wonder Showzen really push the envelope and aren't afraid to take on their opponents full force.

BTW, the comment by that Christian leader in the article just showed that he didn't even watch the episode, he was just told "hey, South Park showed a clip where Jesus shits on the flag and on Bush."

I applaud Comedy Central in their decision. South Park is just taking it too far, and a blatant mockery of some very serious situations is not justifiable. Especially since it remains a sensitive issue and not one that people should inflame even more.

It's like asking a company to broadcast messages about the Holocaust right after it happened glorifying it. It's a bad idea any time, but even more so when issues are still very sensitive.

Comedy Central made the right decision here, and frankly, the South Park creators need to learn a thing or two about the difference between freedom of speech and the moral and physical consequences of their actions, not just for them, but for in particular, other Americans living around the world whos lives are endagered by such arrogant stupidity.

So as an American living in Saudi Arabia, fuck you Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Thank god Comedy Central is more competent than you imbeciles.

I almost thought this was a joke. The crapping all over the flag scene was played so well.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7...14558802zp.png
oh ok

You can get your panties out of their knot now.

Yeah, same. Then I noticed that Jazz hadn't closed the thread, and that some kind of discussion was actually taking place.

The terrorists won.

Wait wait wait wait. You mean when it flashed "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network," that wasn't a joke? I need confirmation here

If CNN is reporting it, then it must be true!

A freedom is not an obligation, nor should it be.
Choosing not to show images of Muhammad for perfectly legitimate reasons is not a violation of free speech, nor is it abandoning it. It is deferring that right in light of extreme circumstances.

One of the worst things you can do in order to encourage reform is to start some kind of personal crusade.

"Why can't we show pictures of Muhammad?"
"Well, we consider it an imperfect representation of the prophet, and...actually, it's easier if I say 'just because.'"
"That's stupid! You're stupid! We're going to do it anyways!"
"Uh...why?"
"Just because!"

Let's all refuse to believe anything we don't see with our own eyes and

Why don't you get off of Trey and Matt's dick before you open your mouth?

While you do have a point, the argument presented by the episode was that caving into the threat of terrorism is what makes it work. That we're willing to change our ways of life so we can avoid another 9/11 essentially does mean that the terrorists have won.

Let me get this straight, terrorists have won because because the media has chosen to enforce media ethics. Well ... this is merely one facet of it. Data mining, wiretapping, etc. are all really acts of the American government.

If indeed you concede that terrorism has won then you're conceding that America made the mistake of trying to protect the lives of its citizenry through stricter implementation of rules.

If you at it that way, then there's no possiblity of America being the victor. Scenario A: America loses because it caved in "terrorist" demands. Scenario B: America loses because it didn't take "terrorist" threats seriously and ended up being irresponsible.

Or, we could have better security, instead of fewer freedoms. It's been 5 years since 9/11, and we still have terrible customs, and a widely-mentioned estimate of 12 million illegals in the country. If that isn't a testament to how "safe" we are from terrorism, I don't know what is.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is truly safe. Acts of terror can happen anywhere at any time. The best we can do to combat terror, is to target organizations that support it in its organized state. Random acts of terror, however, we'll always be subject to. Would the Patriot Act have stopped the Oklahoma City bombing?

The thing really is that terrorism is an international threat and also internationally based. Therefore local policies in themselves are inept in combatting the phenomena. I actually mainly got this idea from a show of Law and Order I think. Anyway it was this protester girl.

I like how your response doesn't mean anything. I essentially just told you that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism is to attack it's support structure. The thing about a support structure, though, is that it tends to support bodies and groups. Like an organization, say, Al Qaeda.

These organizations pool resources and receive funding for these resources from sources outside of the organization. What resources, exactly, did the Unabomber draw from?

Yeah rereading it, it was vague. The point I suppose I wanted to bring across is that how does one bring down the support structures when these structures exist in other nations. It's not so easy when you add up the fact the immigration issue makes it very hard for all these nations to interact together. I just see it as too complex and probably the only thing thing US can probably do ATM is to restrict some freedoms.

Although I personally am against restriction of basic freedoms.

And whose freedoms are we restricting? Foreigners aren't guaranteed any freedoms by the constitution. If what you're talking about is more thorough customs regarding immigration and visitation, I fail to see how that applies to any loss of freedoms on our part whatsoever.

We have to actively cut off the backing for networks like Al Qaeda, and the only way to do that, is to project force and diplomacy. Domestic policies aren't going to be the end-all for combating terrorism, no, but ultimately terror itself is undefeatable. Why should we be willing to give up freedoms out of fear of some sand nigger with a shoe bomb, when a kracked out Aryan could drive a bus full of fertilizer into a federal daycare center?

You're comparing showing images of Muhammad to the Holocaust? Say what?

They need to learn how to laugh at themselves and just take things in stride. It's not like any Muslim is getting hurt by these images. If anything, the appropriate response from them would be to retaliate in a like manner, which in this case would be by making Jesus cartoons and such.

So wait, you think that because we're threatened with violence, we should cave in to specific demands? There's a word for that . . . What was it again . . . ? Oh, yeah, that's right, terrorism.

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Well, let's see . . . Have we lost freedoms because of terrorist actions and threats? Yes. Have our lives changed because of terrorist actions and threats? Yes. So, yes, the terrorists have essentially "won" here.

You're a wise one, Bradylama. That is all exactly right. You don't limit freedoms to combat terrorism, you strike at its source. Or as the saying goes, it's not how many times you fall, it's how many times you get back up. We have to fight them, spit in their faces, and say "we won't let you run our lives". Will people die? Yeah, probably, but eventually we will win. The path we're going down right now in this country, this isn't the path to victory, this is the road to defeat.

I guess the freedom expressed in the different shows we see. Freedom to protest (speech) , freedom from scrutiny, privacy, etc. Although I do see these more as infringement of personal right rather than necessary governmental action. It is what the government does seemingly want to project however. "Actions necessary to curtail terrorism."

The customs part is not related to freedom. Yeah diplomatic policy is necessary to attack the foundations of terrorism. But that won't exactly be as easy since some of the countries which have terrorist connections and bases are unwilling to deal with the Western world. The immigration policies are actually very good "distractions" for not wanting to interact with a country that is unwilling to accept other nations.

Theoretically it may be a bit of a stretch but I think that many countries are using this or any other similar tactics to defer from dealing with the US, britain or whatever.


Anyway I should probably address the other points.
There is probably no dispute in the terrorists winning thing. People have already become afraid and suppressed.

It's hard to think about what should've been about the episode. I personally believe that people have a choice whether to see the show anyway. And that people who find it offensive can just switch to another channel.

But it's difficult to let this action take its course because the world is very sensitive right now. You're not necessarily addressing only terrorism when you censor the segment. You're actually addressing the concerns of a people, religion, and inter-relations. It would be wiser to be on friendly terms with the people who might harbor ill feelings and potentially be fodder for terrorism. This actions does ensure that at least diplomatic relations won't be so sour over an episode (like over a certain set of cartoons).

According to Islam, Jesus is relative to a prophet. I recall a guy who wrote a play where Jesus was gay receiving death threats. In any case, featuring Jesus pooing on everybody is probably an insult to the prophet, so Trey and Matt are going to be receiving death threats regardless of what Comedy Central did in regards to Muhammad.

How the Muslims are most likely to react is with a cartoon insulting American culture. Probably something about McDonalds or KFC, and Bush. It's essentially how they responded to the Danish cartoons. (and they boycotted Danish products)

Dope, I have no idea what point you're trying to get across. How does curtailing our freedoms in order to fight terrorism, help combat it?

Just wanted to say:

Woah, where the fuck did that come from?

I mean, hell, I've only seen around a fifth of all the South Park episodes, but from the stuff I've seen Matt and Trey do, I really support the guys (similar political beliefs). Isn't that what this discussion is about? Suddenly since you like something, you're some kind of brown-noser?

No, it's since you express your thoughts as a promo instead of an opinion that lines get crossed. The conclusion drawn, then, is that you're either a plant, a parrot, or you're incapable of expressing any thoughts in a form that hasn't been presented in a magazine ad, or a kiss-ass review article.

I mean, really Jazz, you've got to look at what you're saying. Your assesments are full of buzz words that nobody puts any stock in.

Adamgian is again a weeping vagina when it comes to Muslim insults and I'm somehow not shocked.
They're compared in the sense that both are sensitive topics to their particlar peoples. Whether you or normal American society feel that the glorifying of the murder of millions of Jews amounts to more than a desecration of a revered prophet matters little; it's the point of view of Muslims that's being considered in this case, regardless of their supposed illogicality.

Brady:
Well, you see them as buzz words, since they are overused by shows that don't deserve such recognition.

However, I think South Park and Wonder Showzen actually DO "push the envelope" in terms of content and not caring about angry letters.
Well, let's see. The Denmark cartoons represented Muhammed in a few different ways in order to criticize certain elements of Muslim fundamentalist society. That had a purpose.

The South Park representation had two reasons. The "fluff" reason was to make fun of how Family Guy simply puts anyone in their flashback jokes. The second was to prove that even when simply represented standing around in a scene, Muhammed would be censored out.

I thought the American mindset was "if you don't like it, don't watch it." Any other topic we bring up, people generally say, "well, I don't agree with what he's painting/saying/doing, but I will defend his right to say it." Isn't that why we let the KKK hold rallies?

And while they certainly do that, pulling in Wonder Showzen has no bearing on the discussion, since Wonder Showzen is not a sattire. Having God lose in a game of rock/paper/scissors, dying, and being eaten by children is not pushing the envelope in any meaningful way.