Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wow, that's in terrible taste More

Wow, that's in terrible taste

Comments Filter:
  • They've depicted rape before [wikipedia.org]

    And they've depicted plenty of murder, as well.

    And I don't recall you ever being bothered by them putting a nuclear device up Hillary Clinton's vagina [wikipedia.org], either. As usual you seem to be bothered only when the media turns an unflattering light on someone you like.
    • I can admit to having seen about one full episode of South Park. I do think their "Team America" effort is great, modulo the over-the-top sex bits. But a South Park scholar I'm just not.

      • I can admit to having seen about one full episode of South Park.

        So then you're mad at South Park because some other conservative told you to be mad at it? That show has been skewering celebrities for nearly two decades now. I'm not sure if they have ever had a complete season that didn't make someone mad. Equally so I don't know that they've ever had complete season that someone didn't call them out on (their own personal sense of) "decency".

        Frankly the most surprising thing about South Park at this point is that it is still on, and still has new material. Vie

        • Was I supposed to be goaded by this reply in some way?
          Suggestion: when going for coarse manipulation, do include more explicit directions, please.
          Alternately, you could take the post at face value.

          • Was I supposed to be goaded by this reply in some way?

            No. I was not seeking any particular response from you in that one. I was merely pointing out that as you often do, you were mad because someone told you to be mad.

            I gave you context to show that the show really isn't unusual for what they have done before; indeed the only difference is that this time they seem to have angered more conservatives than usual. More often the South Park guys are picking on the liberals.

            • you were mad

              In real life, do you have the annoying habit of doing unit tests others' emotions? This is a troll zone, so I take you dispassionately at all times. As a behavior form, though, it's the height of rudeness.

              • You could try forming your own opinions about the media, rather than letting other people tell you what to think.

                • I've been telling him that for years. You won't get anywhere... Staying safely in the middle of the herd under heavy peer pressure is all the rage.

                • And what if I already do? Your assertion to the contrary and $5 are worth a beverage down' the coffee shop.
                  • Your own JE contradicts the notion that you formed this opinion on your own. You already admitted that you don't normally watch the show.
                    • How so? Analysis, not assertions, man.

                    • Your own JE contradicts the notion that you formed this opinion on your own. You already admitted that you don't normally watch the show.

                      How so? Analysis, not assertions, man.

                      We have to go back in time ... all the way to Friday [slashdot.org], where you said

                      I can admit to having seen about one full episode of South Park. I do think their "Team America" effort is great, modulo the over-the-top sex bits. But a South Park scholar I'm just not.

                      While yet here in this JE you are taking offense at an episode of a show that you heard of how?

                    • While yet here in this JE you are taking offense at an episode of a show that you heard of how?

                      We need to stipulate what we mean by "taking offense" and what we mean by observing that something is in "terrible taste".
                      Is it really needful to explain why a joke about sodomizing somebody until they die is in "terrible taste"? As for when I'm "taking offense", you yourself can tell the occasion by when I take a break from replying to you.

                    • While yet here in this JE you are taking offense at an episode of a show that you heard of how?

                      We need to stipulate what we mean by "taking offense" and what we mean by observing that something is in "terrible taste".

                      As I stated already, there have been many other equally tasteless South Park episodes, and as far as I have ever seen you have brought up exactly zero of them. The difference here is that this time South Park is taking a (rare) shot at someone from your team.

                    • So, can we derive your requirement as some sort of Manichean: "You have to criticize all, or none. Sampling is right out."?
                      With you and f-bomb, one always feels as though the rules are as a minefield in the dusk, and one never knows precisely how one will get hoisted; only that it is inevitable.
                    • No. My point is that you are criticizing something that you don't understand, only because it is picking on someone you like. Even more so, you know of it only because someone else from your political circles told you about it. You didn't actually form your own opinion on the matter; you are just telling us what someone else told you to feel.

                    • You didn't actually form your own opinion on the matter

                      What level of "understanding" do you think is required to recognize that sexually abusing anyone to the point of their demise is in terrible taste? Your effort to make this solely about my personal regard for Trump (which is scant) is, itself in terrible taste.
                      Kinda hope that your real-world interactions are less given to what appears to be crude high-handedness.

                    • Had the victim been a democrat, you never would have heard of it, and never would have exhibited any outrage over it. Had it been someone from a different country or otherwise completely disconnected from politics you wouldn't have cared either. Now you are exhibiting anger over a show that you admit you don't watch, without paying any attention to what usually happens on that show.

                    • Now you are exhibiting anger

                      As an aside, when you grasp like that, it would belie everything you have to say. Except that I really don't believe you in the first place.

                    • If you want me to believe that you are feeling something other than anger, then please tell me what that something is and why I should believe you. You certainly don't seem to be here to celebrate the First Amendment rights of the creators of South Park.

                    • You certainly don't seem to be here to celebrate the First Amendment rights of the creators of South Park.

                      On the contrary: that's precisely what's afoot. In pointing out their tastelessness, the First Amendment is celebrated. Possibly your understanding of freedom of speech merits review.

                    • In pointing out their tastelessness, the First Amendment is celebrated.

                      That is a strange sense of "celebrated", there. Your JE text never suggested anything positive about it or anything positive about its existence. Instead you are telling us how awful it is that someone would broadcast such a thing on television.

                    • Is not "how awful" part of the communication spectrum? I should think I hardly need to introduce *you* to the idea of criticism.

                    • Is not "how awful" part of the communication spectrum?

                      Interesting that you only see it to exist when it targets someone you like, though. I don't recall you dedicating any JEs to Ted Nugent insulting the POTUS [cnn.com], for example. For that matter, he has threatened the life of the president before [theatlantic.com], and you didn't make a big deal out of that either.

                      So as usual, your knife cuts only one way.

                    • Please elaborate on the desired response protocol you seek to impose upon me. What are your specific requirements?
                    • I don't seek a specific response; my point is only that your response is based on the target and not on the statement. Had it been President Lawnchair instead of Trump you would have likely had no response posted here at all.
                    • As a thought experiment, in the counterfactual case
                      where someone posited the demise of the President through sexual assault means,
                      and I had posted a JE noting it to be in poor taste, I think it just as likely that
                      you'd take one of two routes in warping the plain words given to mean whatever YOU want them to:
                      (a) calling it projection / apophasis [wikipedia.org], or,
                      (b) an attempt to assuage some hypothetical inner racism through exaggerated affinity with the President.
                      Because it's really all about scoring rhetorical p
                    • When it doubt, play the racism card again, eh? That has done you so well over the years...
                    • Was #OccupyResoluteDesk elected via some other methodology? I haven't seen evidence of merit.

                    • Was $Silly_hash_tag_that_nobody_else_in_the_world_uses_for_Obama elected via some other methodology?

                      Methodology other than what, exactly? Other than by campaigning and winning more votes than his opponent?

                    • Wait, are you saying I wasn't racist for failing to vote #OccupyResoluteDesk? I knew it!
                    • I am continuing to say that you make your decisions based on the letter after the name of the candidate. I have never, ever, accused you of making any voting decision based on race. You have attempted a great number of times to trick me into saying otherwise (and notably failed every single time) in spite of the fact that you have zero reason to suspect that I would harbor such feelings.

                      I will further continue to proclaim that if President Lawnchair had an (R) after his name - instead of the dreaded (
                    • I'm not claiming that you personally have ever labeled me a racist. But that, and other cheap, baseless attacks, in all directions, are rather commonplaces, are they not? The message of our day seems to be directed more at the flesh than the mind. Why might that be?

                    • I'm not claiming that you personally have ever labeled me a racist.

                      ... Though you never stop trying to get me to call you one. You have accused people of calling other people racist far more times than I have ever heard people call other people racist.

                      cheap, baseless attacks

                      Your attempts to get me to call you racist are indeed cheap and baseless.

                      The message of our day seems to be directed more at the flesh than the mind. Why might that be?

                      You are free to imagine it that way if it makes you feel better about yourself and your own biases.

                    • Though you never stop trying to get me to call you one.

                      There has never been any lack of unsubstantiated accusation from you. While eschewing the race card specifically, you have been downright liberal in the use of fallacious claims. Saying that I've called for assassinations, disregard of due process, and plagiarism, to name three biggies. Because you're a swell guy, and stuff.

                      You are free to imagine it that way if it makes you feel better about yourself and your own biases.

                      Ah, begging the question [wikipedia.org], I see.

                    • There has never been any lack of unsubstantiated accusation from you

                      If by "unsubstantiated", you actually me "substantiated directly by the comments written by smitty", then I would agree with you.

                      While eschewing the race card specifically,

                      Keep clinging to your conspiracy on that matter. Eventually one of your conspiracies will certainly come to have some merit behind it, right?

                      I've called for assassinations

                      We've gone over this one before, specifically in how you support it in your

                      disregard of due process

                      Which you have supported numerous times and arguably are still to this day supporting, every time you bring up another conspiracy about President Lawnchair and h

                    • The message of our day seems to be directed more at the flesh than the mind.

                      Still trying to separate them are we?

                    • So, stonewall on the facts, don't admit begging the question? Classic d_r.
                    • The three dimensions of body, mind, and soul are my going-in position for all analysis.
                      I'm willing to pay a visit to another school of thought, but I have yet to see you offer anything other than the body, e.g. Carnivore School. Left that one those years ago.

                    • So, stonewall on the facts

                      That word does not fit here [wikipedia.org]. My statements are supported by your comments. I have not refused to answer questions on them.

                      don't admit begging the question

                      I was not begging the question. Just because you claim so does not make it so.

                    • Everything emerges from the flesh. Your trickle down doesn't work here either.

                    • Sure, but is the network adapter the internet?
                    • You're as reliable as Her Majesty.
                    • Sorry, smitty, but I did not order Benghazi either. You won't find evidence in my private email server that contradicts that, as it was never there. I'm also not plotting a communist (for whatever you think that to mean this week) takeover of anything, nor am I planning to put you on the first rocket to Jupiter.
                    • Nah, but do you make a swell tool.

                    • The Internet emerges from the network adapters, they are the synapses.

                    • Be careful, or you're going to wind up deriving a protocol stack.
                    • And I'm sure you'll find evidence to support that in the deleted files and logs on Hillary's private email server, right?
                    • Are you saying that Her Majesty has secretly been hosting Slashdot all these years?
                    • That would be an impressive "hiding in plain sight" tactic. A marginally centrist politician hiding out on a very conservative website... could she drive slashdot to delete things? Perhaps she employs Scientology lawyers in her staff and we didn't know (can we get another conspiracy on that?)?
                    • Centrist is kind of the mean of the distribution, but the margin is the edge. You are so teh funny!

  • Reflection? Please... He is a perfect reflection. Don't sweat a thing. It's top notch media hype to keep the money and attention corralled. Wait until the actual voting starts. Simple name recognition will dominate.... Unless something happens.

    • *golf clap*
      Thanks for flinging yourself upon your horse and riding off madly in all directions [google.com].
      Truly a spectacle.

      • Well, Ms. Streisand, since you brought up *shocking the Donald* into some reflection as if he is at fault for any of the attention he gets, why not follow through?

        • I brought up a show I thought in terrible taste that happens to be about the Donald. But hijacking threads is the way of Slashdot, so I can't complain about you at all.

          • Ah, so you're gonna play d_r on me, eh? Just thought I'd let you know it was right there in the JE, but okay, have it your way... d_r is probably right though, you brought up the show's 'terrible taste' because it just 'happens to be about the Donald'. Thanks for bringing it up, sounds like one of the funnier ones, also because it just 'happens to be about the Donald'. so I'll have a look see.

            • Why, no: I'm going to stick with what I wrote. The show's in terrible taste, but I hope it helps The Donald move toward some reflection. Sometimes something is in terrible taste because it's. . .in terrible taste. Sometimes you and your brother damn_registrars are like Lit. crit. witches with birch switch itches.

  • or if there really was such an episode, but they skewer lots of people. In looking over the stills of past episodes after TFA, I didn't of course see the episode of that "conway" rapper is-nothing-to-me, but I'm LMAO reminiscing about how they portrayed Snooki and Bono and Algore(TM) and Michael Jackson.

    I especially liked how the voice of Chef, Isaac Hayes, participated in episodes making fun of various religions, until it was his religion's turn, in which case he got all butt-hurt and refused to do the sh

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Close