[GingeM]

Sea Capt:

You're going to laugh I'm sure...

RednecksforFreedom.com is already taken... But you can have RednecksforFreedom.net or RednecksforFreedom.org.

[Rupert]

I hear Otis is opening up his own site.......the "Anarchist Squirrel". I'd be afraid to even take a peek.
He looks harmless enough?

[seacapt]

I hear Otis is opening up his own site.......the "Anarchist Squirrel". I'd be afraid to even take a peek.
He looks harmless enough?

Well get Otis and his little buddies suited up in their urban cammo BDU's , send em to NYC where the dirtbags that threatened SouthPark are based and tell them to be swift and severe.
Kick ass , seize assets and get out , not like the no win foolishness our troops have been forced to do .

[Rupert]

Seacapt, I had a short discussion with Otis about your comments and he advised that he is putting together a plan of action. True to his nature, his plan included several million Squirrels going for the nuts. He also said he is not interested in assets but is damn interested in kicking asses.
All I know is that at the last big Squirrel Frenzy, what they did to that poor Raccoon had to be a crime......and I didn't even think Squirrels would eat meat, but apparently if it is roasted alive they find it quite tasty?
Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't find Southpark offensive.
I find it hilarious.
'Offended' is in the mind of the viewer.
We had a saying once for folks that can't take a joke.

They do poke at just about everybody and everything.

I just need to take a step back and laugh at it all sometimes.

Well, on this whole thing, there's a tendency for some to believe, 'If it's not PC, it must be about 'the truth,' ...but there's a difference between satire and just plain *mockery:* mockery can be done in ignorance of the people portrayed, satire usually requires some connection with the 'victim' ...usually South Park does a pretty good job of sending up lots of human foibles, once in a while, though, they really do overextend.

I don't know much about this particular case: it seems more like the issue is between them and the network about yielding to extremists, ...I don't know if it's actually a defamatory portrayal of Muslims, what was cut: intensely-offensive or not on religious grounds, that much is real.

Quite often, television portrayals of Hindu and Pagan divinities are certainly past-offensive: have been for a long time... there's a recent kerfuffle about this show called 'Supernatural' (a terrible show to begin with) deciding to have a little hate-fest by portraying pretty much everyone else's Gods as flesh-eating monsters who I guess can't stand up to Christian demons or some such.

There's been protest from both communities, cause it *is* offensive, and it's not even satire. Similar things happened with the Hercules and Xena franchise, and turn up again and again, really, ironically-enough, often in shows that are accused by Christianists of being some kind of Pagan conspiracy to 'glorify witchcraft,' (what, by claiming it involves demons and conjurings and has no religious content of its own whatsoever?)

South Park, of course, is supposed to be kind of an equal-opportunity offender, but the creators of it do periodically really overstep. (They're actually usually at least a little even-handed about more familiar figures in our own society, even the most-mockable, and all. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the church of Scientology, and I realize it was pretty personal, but they really did break pattern a little there and just go on the attack. )

Also coming to mind is, though they have a distinctly-mixed record on LGBT issues, (Hey, it's often funny, but they went after transsexuals with an extended vengeance which was based on so many ugly stereotypes that it went way past 'satire' and into defamation.... They don't seem to have met any, and breaking form, never seem to have included any kind of positive portrayal or other point of view, or ...well, what they usually do, which is add something to humanize the targets. Mr. Garrison, for instance, well, he's known to be all about the element of closeted gay folks in the society, ...the only problem with that whole binge is that transsexuals aren't actually closeted gay men. They're different. )

Usually what they're going after is actually people's perceptions of each other, ...sometimes, they just get a hate-on for a given celebrity or just plain miss the target: and start mocking people as though the stereotypes were reality, when maybe stereotypes are all people know.

The role of satire is, in my view, mostly about 'comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.' South Park's creators may often be pretty funny and insightful, but they didn't get an 'Un-PC Means Magic Direct Line to The Truth' button that applies to everything that comes out of their mouths.

Which is to say, sometimes stuff *is* offensive, and people are right to be offended. In America, certainly, we don't choose, in general, to silence the offensive, theoretically. (In reality, the networks often are quite selective about who they let silence them: has to do with marketshare and influence in our society rather than rightness or wrongness: they'll run anti-gay church ads and not allow non-anti-gay churches to run ads saying, 'Not us,' for instance, )

But there are double-standards, there. Particularly in public reactions. I'm certainly not saying the network's in the right, here, or anyone, certainly, we all react in certain ways if someone says, 'You can't say that!' ...But too often certain people will claim, 'You're just offended, so we're offended at you existing!'

When there's more to it. If there are actually-positive portrayals of groups out there, or what they hold sacred, it's a lot easier to cut loose on the foibles. When there are none, especially when it's a minority without much voice of their own in this country, it's just joining in on the 'bashing.'

South Park does go after everyone, but say you're Jewish, how would you feel if maybe all a lot of viewers *ever knew* about Jews was certain nasty stereotypes and any given episode of South Park?

One can laugh about it if you know people really do know somewhat better, even if the stereotypes are still operative out there.

I haven't seen the episode in question, but I do wonder if it gives the impression, 'All Muslims are network-threatening censoring terrorists!' (Certainly it seems some here will say just that.)

Cause a lot of people don't know a whole lot of Muslim Americans, either. And there's a lot of active hatred and defamation, there, too, even if some people actually threaten cartoonists about their own orthodoxy. (Actually, Islam does get some respect out there, compared to other faiths which actually are more of the American population by numbers, who can't catch a break anywhere.)

It's actually one of the virtues of *my* sort of religion: "Let there be mirth *and* reverence within you," and from this we figure Themselves have a sense of humor, too, ...but make no mistake, we know what it's like when it's just ignorant mockery and ...thus, not really funny.

Context, and all.

[Rupert]

Ratlady, Muslims want to kill you, plain and simple. They don't want to joke around about it or poke fun at LGBT's....they want to eradicate you from the face of the earth...is there something you just don't understand about this? I don't think they are all that fond of me either, but at least I see them for what they are. Christians may not like you, but I haven't seen any of them cutting off heads of LGBT's. If you have, please correct me!
Regards!

[shooz]

I'm sorry RML.
I have to disagree.
All GREAT comedy offends someone somewhere.
From Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Richard Pryor, even Dane Cook.
If we can't laugh at our sacred cows and sacred fears, Are we really laughing at all?
Even Shakespeare wrote comedy that offended someone.
I will always respect your beliefs. But I do reserve the right to poke fun at them.

[Ratmagiclady]

I'm sorry RML.
I have to disagree.
All GREAT comedy offends someone somewhere.
From Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Richard Pryor, even Dane Cook.
If we can't laugh at our sacred cows and sacred fears, Are we really laughing at all?

That's really not what I was saying: I wasn't saying, "No one should offend anyone," but there are differences in how it's gone about, and there are differences in how it's reacted to.

'Offensive' doesn't necessarily mean 'funny' or that someone's actually hit the mark.

If I make fun of you, saying, "Ah, everyone from Michigan is a cannibal, aren't those ridiculous Michigander cannibals ridiculous? Stop being so sensitive, you cannibal! Poke fun at yourself, cannibal! "

That's not the same as people who know each other joking about each other, foibles at all.

'Gay jokes' told by LGBT people are different from homophobic 'jokes' ones told by others to degrade people they don't know. Cause, well, we *can* laugh at ourselves. Nearly everyone in the world can, (except maybe fundamentalists of varying kinds.)

But you can't 'laugh at yourself' if it's not really you at all, just slurs being treated as some 'funny truth.'

Actually, come to think of it, accusations of humorlessness (Particularly in the face of defamation) *is itself* one of the ways people dehumanize the foreign: the humorless Native American, the humorless Catholic or Protestant or liberal or whoever. the humorless lesbian, (Frankly, I've been tarred with that one right here no matter how much I goof on myself. I mean, really. People say 'Lighten Up,' when I *am* joking. Gods. )

Even Shakespeare wrote comedy that offended someone.
I will always respect your beliefs. But I do reserve the right to poke fun at them.

The point is, if you're 'poking fun' at a false label, you're not really poking fun at 'sacred cows,' ...Heck, when people poke fun at Hindu people for *having* sacred cows, they don't know what they're looking at, either. Never mind having any insight to offer.

Being offensive doesn't *confer* humor or truth, that's the point.

And it doesn't mean people can't be *offended.* All issues of censorship aside.

And if you have to say, "This is funny!" Well, maybe it's not.

[Rupert]

Two things you are not famous for Ratlady is having a sense of humor and having thick skin. I find plenty of humor offensive, but most likely plentyof my humor offends others. It is a give and take world, and if we get too rigid, we break.
We are all different in what we find funny.....My grandson mentioned the other day I might need to lose a few pounds around the belly area.......I told him that I thought I might be going to have a baby......a baby elephant, since I could see his trunk hanging out! Now I thought it was funny, and so did my grandson....but Mrs Rupert went ballistic! Not funny at all to her.........maybe not to others either, but it is an old joke that has been around forever, and I still find it amusing.
Regards!

[GingeM]

If your first reaction to things you see and hear is to determine whether or not it offends someone, somewhere then you really need to take a good hard look at yourselves. You're "strung a little tight".

[Rupert]

If your first reaction to things you see and hear is to determine whether or not it offends someone, somewhere then you really need to take a good hard look at yourselves. You're "strung a little tight".

You know Mr Ginge, I think I can agree with that. Unless it is blatantly and obviously offensive in a purposeful manner, I would say that a person could most definitely be wound a little too tight. Mrs Rupert is a tightly wound person....no doubt about it, but I am not going to be the one to tell her. I was damn lucky the time her pistola misfired, and as lucky as I am, I'm not pushing it!
Regards!

[GingeM]

Unless it is blatantly and obviously offensive in a purposeful manner

Surely, if that were the case, it would be a deliberate insult rather than a joke. Generally, when face to face the two are easily discernible.

But it shows we can agree... I just don't see this event to be broad ranging...

[Rupert]

Surely, if that were the case, it would be a deliberate insult rather than a joke. Generally, when face to face the two are easily discernible.

But it shows we can agree... I just don't see this event to be broad ranging...

Well, I wouldn't go baking a Celebration Cake either! LOL! It is not necessary that we agree here, but it is always nice when we can find some common ground...it happens more often than we realize. I do look for agreement, and when I see it I try to point it out rather than just letting it slide for the sake of keeping a bowed backbone.
Regards!

[GingeM]

If you can't laugh at yourself you have no reason to laugh at others. It's a way I have lived my life and I attack myself as relentlessly as I attack anyone else with humour.

It's a shame that so many are filled with their own self importance as to not be able to laugh freely.

[Rupert]

If you can't laugh at yourself you have no reason to laugh at others. It's a way I have lived my life and I attack myself as relentlessly as I attack anyone else with humour.

It's a shame that so many are filled with their own self importance as to not be able to laugh freely.

I am more fortunate than most....I have dozens of Squirrels to help me keep a perspective on my importance in this world. When Otis tells me my greatest accomplishment in life is feeding Squirrels, it does tend to make me humble......

Otis always knows best....at least he says he does, and I never argue with Otis...no one that values their hard drive or internet connection argues with Otis.......anyhow, that's what I have been told. I only argued with him once.......I'm now a believer.

You don't look evil Otis?