South Park Censored

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Prefanity » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:44 pm UTC

Asylumer wrote:
Prefanity wrote:This might be a tad silly (and it may have already been covered), but why is it allowable to write Muhammad's name?


It may have something to do with the fact it's one of the most common names in the world. Even in the time of the prophet himself the name wasn't his alone.


While I understand that, I feel there is a difference between writing the name generally and writing it to refer specifically to the profit.

Kulantan wrote:A, perhaps, more useful Wikipedia page...


I skimmed the page before I asked here. I didn't see any specific justification, just that it's allowed (as well as written descriptions of him).

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby folkhero » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:53 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
folkhero wrote:South Park's characters use God's name in vain all the time.

That chicken flew the coop a long time ago. I'd liken it to featuring an unveiled Muslim woman, which is something routinely done by TV stations the world over, and doesn't lead to death threats outside stations in fundamentalist nations. It's just not universally offensive enough to be similar to depicting the Prophet in an image.

The "show a cartoon depiction of Muhammad" chicken also left the coop back in 2001 when they showed him in "Super Best Friends." The only reason it went back in the coop was violent thuggery. By using the threats to measure levels of offense, you give the threats validity and give them power over our discourse.

You were saying that depicting Muhammad was categorically different than other offense-causing speech on the show based on the distinction between actual and fictional. I demonstrated this to not be the case, so you are moving the goalposts by saying "it's still more offensive," and your justification as to why it's more offensive is to point to the death threats that I thought you earlier condemned.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby scikidus » Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:04 am UTC

rigwarl wrote:For those of you appalled at Comedy Central, ask yourself this: If someone threatened to kill you and your innocent co-workers if you continued doing X, would you stop doing X?

I would call the police. Americans are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and death threats kind of get in the way of that.

Which leads to my bigger question: is anyone trying to hunt down the senders of the the death threats? I'm pretty sure those are illegal.
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:13 am UTC

scikidus wrote:
rigwarl wrote:For those of you appalled at Comedy Central, ask yourself this: If someone threatened to kill you and your innocent co-workers if you continued doing X, would you stop doing X?

I would call the police. Americans are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and death threats kind of get in the way of that.

Which leads to my bigger question: is anyone trying to hunt down the senders of the the death threats? I'm pretty sure those are illegal.


explicitly stated death threads are illegal.

In this case though, the message wasn't "I'm going to kill you!!!" Rather, the guy wrote it so that anyone who read it understood what he was implying, but legally speaking it doesn't classify as a death thread I believe.

User avatar
big boss
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:59 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby big boss » Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:46 am UTC

Kayangelus wrote:In this case though, the message wasn't "I'm going to kill you!!!" Rather, the guy wrote it so that anyone who read it understood what he was implying, but legally speaking it doesn't classify as a death thread I believe.


If theres a reasonable possibility that one's life is endangered by another isn't that enough to pursue legal action?
"Starbuck, what do you hear?"
"Nothing but the Rain."

User avatar
rigwarl
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby rigwarl » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:58 am UTC

scikidus wrote:
rigwarl wrote:For those of you appalled at Comedy Central, ask yourself this: If someone threatened to kill you and your innocent co-workers if you continued doing X, would you stop doing X?

I would call the police. Americans are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and death threats kind of get in the way of that.

Which leads to my bigger question: is anyone trying to hunt down the senders of the the death threats? I'm pretty sure those are illegal.


Sure, calling the police is a good idea, but you would probably also abide by the threat. The risk/reward ratio just doesn't make it worth it- they can air the episode as a statement of liberty and risk innocent people dying. How would you like to be the one to make the decision to air it uncensored, only to hear an office was bombed in retaliation and a hundred people were killed?

There ARE people who risk their lives for the greater good, but expecting average civilians to do so to accomplish something relatively trivial is unreasonable. Also, keep in mind there are other people's lives at risk as well besides whoever decided to censor it, and threats on this topic have a proven track record of being carried out.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: South Park Censored

Postby skeptical scientist » Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:00 am UTC

big boss wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:In this case though, the message wasn't "I'm going to kill you!!!" Rather, the guy wrote it so that anyone who read it understood what he was implying, but legally speaking it doesn't classify as a death thread I believe.


If theres a reasonable possibility that one's life is endangered by another isn't that enough to pursue legal action?

I'm pretty sure the prosecutor looked into it and decided there wasn't enough there to justify a prosecution. Difference between obvious to the average guy and legal standard of proof, etc., etc.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby scikidus » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:06 am UTC

rigwarl wrote:Sure, calling the police is a good idea, but you would probably also abide by the threat. The risk/reward ratio just doesn't make it worth it- they can air the episode as a statement of liberty and risk innocent people dying. How would you like to be the one to make the decision to air it uncensored, only to hear an office was bombed in retaliation and a hundred people were killed?

There ARE people who risk their lives for the greater good, but expecting average civilians to do so to accomplish something relatively trivial is unreasonable. Also, keep in mind there are other people's lives at risk as well besides whoever decided to censor it, and threats on this topic have a proven track record of being carried out.

Giving in to their demands just tells them that their tactics will work in the future.

"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both." - Ben Franklin
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

User avatar
rigwarl
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby rigwarl » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:57 pm UTC

I respect people who are willing to put their life on the line for what they believe in, but in this case, it's not worth it for whoever made the decision to put the lives of their civilian coworkers on the line for something relatively trivial. Again, the topic of Muhammad has a track record of carrying out threats, and even if there's a 0.1% chance of something happening, the risk vastly outweighs the reward for Comedy Central.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby emceng » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:04 pm UTC

rigwarl wrote:
Sure, calling the police is a good idea, but you would probably also abide by the threat. The risk/reward ratio just doesn't make it worth it- they can air the episode as a statement of liberty and risk innocent people dying. How would you like to be the one to make the decision to air it uncensored, only to hear an office was bombed in retaliation and a hundred people were killed?

There ARE people who risk their lives for the greater good, but expecting average civilians to do so to accomplish something relatively trivial is unreasonable. Also, keep in mind there are other people's lives at risk as well besides whoever decided to censor it, and threats on this topic have a proven track record of being carried out.



Isn't that pretty much the definition of terrorism? The subject made a threat to the wellbeing of someone, with implicit language as to the cause of the threat. This threat had the sole purpose of stopping said action. That leads to the question - do you have a policy on terrorists? Shall we give in to their demands, or stand up to them, risking life and limb?
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
rigwarl
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby rigwarl » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:17 pm UTC

There ARE people who risk their lives for the greater good, firefighters, soldiers, etc. I'm simply saying you can't expect an average civilian to risk both their life as well as their coworkers/friends to do so, especially when there is relatively little at stake in this case. If YOU would be willing to do so, then more power to you. I wouldn't- if you want to call me a coward or whatever, fine. Keep in mind the extremists aren't reasonable, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be.

My point is that it's easy to sit on the sidelines with nothing at stake and tell Comedy Central to bear a huge risk for something that doesn't really benefit them at all (though I agree it benefits America, and the world as a whole). The risk/reward gap is even wider so if you consider it from the point of view of the actual people making the decision.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: South Park Censored

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:20 pm UTC

emceng wrote:
rigwarl wrote:
Sure, calling the police is a good idea, but you would probably also abide by the threat. The risk/reward ratio just doesn't make it worth it- they can air the episode as a statement of liberty and risk innocent people dying. How would you like to be the one to make the decision to air it uncensored, only to hear an office was bombed in retaliation and a hundred people were killed?

There ARE people who risk their lives for the greater good, but expecting average civilians to do so to accomplish something relatively trivial is unreasonable. Also, keep in mind there are other people's lives at risk as well besides whoever decided to censor it, and threats on this topic have a proven track record of being carried out.



Isn't that pretty much the definition of terrorism? The subject made a threat to the wellbeing of someone, with implicit language as to the cause of the threat. This threat had the sole purpose of stopping said action. That leads to the question - do you have a policy on terrorists? Shall we give in to their demands, or stand up to them, risking life and limb?

In the words of South Park itself: "That's not like terrorism. That is terrorism!"
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

rigwarl wrote:Sure, calling the police is a good idea, but you would probably also abide by the threat.
No. Some of us have spines.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby kiklion » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:43 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
rigwarl wrote:Sure, calling the police is a good idea, but you would probably also abide by the threat.
No. Some of us have spines.


While I initially agreed, the company has a higher priority to the safety of it's employee's. If I was a blogged making my posts all my own I wouldn't cave, but if I ran a small company I wouldn't endanger the others I work with without consulting them first. Comedy Central may be a bit too big to view that as an option.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:48 am UTC

kiklion wrote:While I initially agreed, the company has a higher priority to the safety of it's employee's. If I was a blogged making my posts all my own I wouldn't cave, but if I ran a small company I wouldn't endanger the others I work with without consulting them first. Comedy Central may be a bit too big to view that as an option.
I'm not saying CC made the wrong decision- they know their situation better than I do- but I'm stating that, no, not everyone responds to death threats with cowardice.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Dream » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:18 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
kiklion wrote:While I initially agreed, the company has a higher priority to the safety of it's employee's. If I was a blogged making my posts all my own I wouldn't cave, but if I ran a small company I wouldn't endanger the others I work with without consulting them first. Comedy Central may be a bit too big to view that as an option.
I'm not saying CC made the wrong decision- they know their situation better than I do- but I'm stating that, no, not everyone responds to death threats with cowardice.

Rigwarl is going about this in a very wrong-headed way. The reaction an individual has to a personally directed threat is hardly important to a discussion involving large corporations, entire religions and similar.

My two cents on this point is that not everyone who caves to a threat is a coward. They might just weigh up the options and do what brings them out on top. Not to mention that in certain circumstances, caving to a threat if you feel it's the right thing to do might be a more courageous act than standing up to it.

...but it's really not relevant.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: South Park Censored

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:57 am UTC

Yes they are cowards, because they allow the threat of violence to be used as a tool to control them. That's one of the definitions of cowardice given on Wiki: "On a more mundane level, the label may be applied to those who are regarded as too frightened or overwhelmed to defend their rights or those of others from aggressors in their lives."
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Dream » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:07 am UTC

If someone told me they'd kill me if I didn't do something, and I really, really wanted to fight for my life rather than do the thing, I'd still stop and think about whether my "courage" was something I wanted to have at the price of the suffering my death would cause to everyone who loves me. Anyone who wouldn't weigh that up is a selfish cunt. Sometimes, that balance will tell a person to concede, sometimes not. The person is not a coward who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:53 am UTC

I'm 100% with Dream on this point. Tried to make it myself a few times, but couldn't manage to word it very well.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: South Park Censored

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:54 am UTC

Dream wrote:If someone told me they'd kill me if I didn't do something, and I really, really wanted to fight for my life rather than do the thing, I'd still stop and think about whether my "courage" was something I wanted to have at the price of the suffering my death would cause to everyone who loves me. Anyone who wouldn't weigh that up is a selfish cunt. Sometimes, that balance will tell a person to concede, sometimes not. The person is not a coward who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image.

So you claim that nobody really has principles they uphold, and everyone just takes the moral stances and actions we do in order to feed our egos?
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby yoni45 » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:01 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
Dream wrote:If someone told me they'd kill me if I didn't do something, and I really, really wanted to fight for my life rather than do the thing, I'd still stop and think about whether my "courage" was something I wanted to have at the price of the suffering my death would cause to everyone who loves me. Anyone who wouldn't weigh that up is a selfish cunt. Sometimes, that balance will tell a person to concede, sometimes not. The person is not a coward who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image.

So you claim that nobody really has principles they uphold, and everyone just takes the moral stances and actions we do in order to feed our egos?


That's pretty clearly not what he claimed.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Kayangelus » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:01 am UTC

Dream wrote:If someone told me they'd kill me if I didn't do something, and I really, really wanted to fight for my life rather than do the thing, I'd still stop and think about whether my "courage" was something I wanted to have at the price of the suffering my death would cause to everyone who loves me. Anyone who wouldn't weigh that up is a selfish cunt. Sometimes, that balance will tell a person to concede, sometimes not. The person is not a coward who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image.

Nice choice of words there. Also love how you state that the only measuring stick we should use is our courage vs the suffering of others due to an event that causes them no physical harm. There can be reasons beyond just courage, like, say ideals. Not to mention, if I'm harming myself and no one else, than whether people upset at that or not is none of my business. If that is called being a selfish cunt (well, dick actually since I'm a guy), you are an overbearing asshole who forces his moral views on others. Well, okay, I'm also kind of a hypocrite, but whatever. As to having which of those terms applied to you is preferable, that is for everyone to decide on their own.

And a person who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image is not a coward. A person who gives up their freedom or ideals due to force or threat of force is a coward however.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:24 pm UTC

Dream wrote:My two cents on this point is that not everyone who caves to a threat is a coward. They might just weigh up the options and do what brings them out on top. Not to mention that in certain circumstances, caving to a threat if you feel it's the right thing to do might be a more courageous act than standing up to it.

...but it's really not relevant.
Of course they're cowards. I do not mean to imply that the cowardly course of action is necessarily the wrong one- as stated in that post, I don't know whether or not CC made the right decision, though I do know they made the cowardly decision. Language can be descriptive without being judgmental.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Chen » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:57 pm UTC

Yeah the term cowards has a large negative connotation to it, but cowardice (as per the definition) can often be the more rational action.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:23 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:So you claim that nobody really has principles they uphold, and everyone just takes the moral stances and actions we do in order to feed our egos?
No. Dream is saying that Dream, if threatened with murder, would second guess and likely back down. Dream says Dream would do that. Himself. One person talking about one person in a way of sympathizing with Comedy Central here and saying that he understands where Comedy Central is coming from because Dream would likely back off if threatened with murder.

Dream is talking about Dream, not Every Human Ever.

Pay attention!
Kayangelus wrote:Nice choice of words there. Also love how you state that the only measuring stick we should use is our courage vs the suffering of others due to an event that causes them no physical harm. There can be reasons beyond just courage, like, say ideals. Not to mention, if I'm harming myself and no one else, than whether people upset at that or not is none of my business. If that is called being a selfish cunt (well, dick actually since I'm a guy), you are an overbearing asshole who forces his moral views on others. Well, okay, I'm also kind of a hypocrite, but whatever. As to having which of those terms applied to you is preferable, that is for everyone to decide on their own.

And a person who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image is not a coward. A person who gives up their freedom or ideals due to force or threat of force is a coward however.
As the CEO of a large corporation, if your company was met with a "threat" in the form of "Boy, if you did X, it should would be a shame if some people were to rough you up over it, if you understand what I'm meaning. It'd be a shame if they did that because you did X.. no no, I'm not threatening you, I'm just saying.. it'd be a shame if anything were to happen... understand?" and the CEO, being an intelligent human being who personally wouldn't give a fuck is someone mailed him a bomb that killed him because he'd be dying in the name of free speech....

Is that CEO a coward for backing down because he'd rather not have some mail clerk he's never met die because the clerk handled the bomb that had the CEO's name on it and set it off? Is he a coward for not wanting the couple of receptionists he sees every morning and calls them all "Champ" because at this point, 3 years on, it'd be embarrassing to admit he has no idea what their names are... is he a coward for not wanting them to get hit by a carbomb driven into the lobby?

Here, has anyone actually read the threat?
Spoiler:
South Park Aired Episode Insulting The Prophet (Salaa Allahu 'Alayhi Wa Salam)
Thursday, 15 April 2010 13:54 | Written by Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee | PDF | E-mail



Theo Van Gogh - Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?



SOURCE

Fans of the popular series South Park are waiting for tonight’s episode after it was revealed the episode will include a portrayal of the character of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad.

The controversy started in 2005 when a Danish newspaper ran a series of comics where an image of Muhammad was shown. It raised protests in the middle east where Muslims burned Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.

This is not the first time the creator of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, produced episodes including Muhammad in the character. In July 4, 2001 an episode entitled Super Best Friends successfully aired with the prophet depicted.

People are waiting if tonight’s episode will be really aired or canceled.

The episode went beyond just showing him, but it outright insulted him, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, by showing him in a bear suit and making fun of our beloved Nabi, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam. It already aired and you can read comments about it here.

Comments from some of the viewers:

I’m a relative newcomer to South Park, and I’m quite ignorant about pop culture, so I didn’t recognize many of the celebrities or get any of the in-jokes. Still, I thought this was one of the funniest shows I’ve ever seen. Seeing Muhammad in the bear costume, and hearing him speak in a timid voice, was absolutely hilarious. I even thought it was respectful of Islam, while ridiculing Americans’ poor understanding of the religion’s practices.

I was really hoping they would put Muhammed inside the Sexual Harassment Panda suit but overall loved this episode.

Wow – that would have been AWESOME!

Where do they live?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/0 ... 51067.html

You can download the whole lecture from our "Downloads Section"

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them. Maybe they have not listened to this lecture before:

You can contact them, or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses:



Last Updated (Thursday, 15 April 2010 14:38)
- retrieved from Google Cache. I don't know if the last addresses were removed before the cache grabbed them, or if they were on an image that wasn't copied or if they were even there. But yeah, it's kinda threatening to say "These guys are blasphemous. Here's where they live. Sure would be a shame if anything happened to them."

Were Comedy Central not named, then I'd still be pissed at them for dicking with the episode. Since they were named, I can understand parts of what they did. Without knowing the content of the "I learned something today" speeches, I don't know if there was any justification there.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Kayangelus » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:38 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:Nice choice of words there. Also love how you state that the only measuring stick we should use is our courage vs the suffering of others due to an event that causes them no physical harm. There can be reasons beyond just courage, like, say ideals. Not to mention, if I'm harming myself and no one else, than whether people upset at that or not is none of my business. If that is called being a selfish cunt (well, dick actually since I'm a guy), you are an overbearing asshole who forces his moral views on others. Well, okay, I'm also kind of a hypocrite, but whatever. As to having which of those terms applied to you is preferable, that is for everyone to decide on their own.

And a person who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image is not a coward. A person who gives up their freedom or ideals due to force or threat of force is a coward however.
As the CEO of a large corporation, if your company was met with a "threat" in the form of "Boy, if you did X, it should would be a shame if some people were to rough you up over it, if you understand what I'm meaning. It'd be a shame if they did that because you did X.. no no, I'm not threatening you, I'm just saying.. it'd be a shame if anything were to happen... understand?" and the CEO, being an intelligent human being who personally wouldn't give a fuck is someone mailed him a bomb that killed him because he'd be dying in the name of free speech....

Is that CEO a coward for backing down because he'd rather not have some mail clerk he's never met die because the clerk handled the bomb that had the CEO's name on it and set it off? Is he a coward for not wanting the couple of receptionists he sees every morning and calls them all "Champ" because at this point, 3 years on, it'd be embarrassing to admit he has no idea what their names are... is he a coward for not wanting them to get hit by a carbomb driven into the lobby?


He would be acting in a cowardly manner. Why he is giving in to force doesn't change the fact that he is giving in to force.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:40 pm UTC

Fair enough.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Asylumer
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Asylumer » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:10 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:And a person who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image is not a coward. A person who gives up their freedom or ideals due to force or threat of force is a coward however.
As the CEO of a large corporation, if your company was met with a "threat" in the form of "Boy, if you did X, it should would be a shame if some people were to rough you up over it, if you understand what I'm meaning. It'd be a shame if they did that because you did X.. no no, I'm not threatening you, I'm just saying.. it'd be a shame if anything were to happen... understand?" and the CEO, being an intelligent human being who personally wouldn't give a fuck is someone mailed him a bomb that killed him because he'd be dying in the name of free speech....

Is that CEO a coward for backing down because he'd rather not have some mail clerk he's never met die because the clerk handled the bomb that had the CEO's name on it and set it off? Is he a coward for not wanting the couple of receptionists he sees every morning and calls them all "Champ" because at this point, 3 years on, it'd be embarrassing to admit he has no idea what their names are... is he a coward for not wanting them to get hit by a carbomb driven into the lobby?[/quote]

The problem I find with this is that it still serves to gives threats of violence their power over others so long as they threaten those surrounding the one(s) who angered them. If one looked at even one's own life and how the death effected others as harming others, then the only way to ethically take a stand for your own beliefs would be to have absolutely no connections with another human being.

And I disagree with your interpretation of Dream's post...

Dream wrote:My two cents on this point is that not everyone who caves to a threat is a coward. They might just weigh up the options and do what brings them out on top. Not to mention that in certain circumstances, caving to a threat if you feel it's the right thing to do might be a more courageous act than standing up to it.


I don't think I'm reading too much into things when I find that your interest here is defending the threats used against Matt Stone and Trey Parker because they, as satirists, did not give respect towards religious beliefs. I see the message constantly underlying your posts as you attempt to make it seem noble for them to not value their own beliefs since others might disagree. That is what you repeatedly fail to understand: We have deeply rooted beliefs as well. You've tried to paint the South Park creators stand as something purely aggressive, as if there were no merit to what they thought. Want to know why we defend Free Speech so adamantly? Because without protecting even insulting speech there is nothing to keep society together.

I am an Atheist, or more specifically, a Naturalistic Pantheist. Should I become offended whenever a Theist argues that their God created the universe I admire for its perfection in order itself, a perfection that only reveals itself when it isn't tainted by "magic man done it?" Should I become offended whenever a Christian or Muslim tells me that I am a fool and I will suffer for the rest of eternity for my beliefs? If they don't say it, does that make it any better when they support the religion that does?

Yes. I should be offended on all counts. But what I realize is that my being offended doesn't give my beliefs undue rights over the others when it comes to Free Speech. In a civilized society we must all be allowed to speak our minds despite inherent disagreements in our philosophies. The only way this is possible is if we value the right of Free Speech because if you start making exceptions, the majority will inevitably place its speech over that of all others.

Before you continue to condemn Matt Stone and Trey Parker consider their perspective. This interview was before the huge outrage on BoingBoing: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/23/south-parks-matt-tre.html

The only way "giving into threats" would be right is if the person actually believed it. When the message comes in the form of physical violence there is no "doing the right thing", there is one person ignoring the rights of the other and the victim's beliefs because theirs are so weak that they must resort to hurting another human being to spread them.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Dream » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:18 pm UTC

Asylumer wrote:I see the message constantly underlying your posts as you attempt to make it seem noble for them to not value their own beliefs since others might disagree.

And I see faces in the cliffs near my flat. They're not really there.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Asylumer
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Asylumer » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
Asylumer wrote:I see the message constantly underlying your posts as you attempt to make it seem noble for them to not value their own beliefs since others might disagree.

And I see faces in the cliffs near my flat. They're not really there.


Perhaps I'm suffering from a reading comprehension fail but after your earlier posts where you attacked South Park's offensiveness I can't see how you aren't slipping in the same idea when you refer to taking a stand as "selfish" or "conceited" and that they should give in. Or am I confusing some of what you wrote with CleverBeans?

It wouldn't be the first time I misread a post, but it just seems to me that you're more carefully wording your previous ideas.

EDIT: Actually, this would be a better example of what I'm talking about

And a person who values the happiness of their loved ones over their own self image is not a coward


I can see how the rest deals with protecting people you love, but that one made me think there was something else to what you were getting at. Saying that somebody would only stand up because they had an image problem did rub me in the wrong way.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby mosc » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:20 pm UTC

Comedy Central is a wholly owned subsidiary of Viacom which is a publically traded company and has a financial obligation to MAKE AS MUCH FUCKING MONEY AS POSSIBLE, not to defend your god damned free speech. They are in business, and pissing off customers is bad business. Stop fucking inserting your morality over what is fundamentally a business decision on how to make the most money. They are required by law to ignore your morals whenever legally possible when they conflict with their ability to make money. If they don't, they should be fired and replaced with those that will.

Free speech is when an individual is denied by an extension of the government from doing something. It is NOT self censorship. That's called having a fucking brain. The government didn't stop South Park from airing an image of the Prophet Mohamed, the guy paying the bills, investing his money, and demanding a financial return did AKA the shareholder.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Asylumer
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Asylumer » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:29 pm UTC

mosc wrote:They are in business, and pissing off customers is bad business. Stop fucking inserting your morality over what is fundamentally a business decision on how to make the most money. They are required by law to ignore your morals whenever legally possible when they conflict with their ability to make money. If they don't, they should be fired and replaced with those that will.


While I was arguing more on the basis of ethics for Free Speech, your argument is still terrible when you consider the show itself makes its success by satirizing/offending people. Trying to protect employees I can see, but a decision made for the all-mighty dollar it sure as hell wasn't.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby mosc » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:41 pm UTC

Asylumer wrote:
mosc wrote:They are in business, and pissing off customers is bad business. Stop fucking inserting your morality over what is fundamentally a business decision on how to make the most money. They are required by law to ignore your morals whenever legally possible when they conflict with their ability to make money. If they don't, they should be fired and replaced with those that will.


While I was arguing more on the basis of ethics for Free Speech, your argument is still terrible when you consider the show itself makes its success by satirizing/offending people. Trying to protect employees I can see, but a decision made for the all-mighty dollar it sure as hell wasn't.

You are now an expert on the cost/benefit? Do you really think Comedy Central ignored "the almighty dollar" in favor of a more expensive censorship option?

Your ethical objections are factored in as loosing you as a customer, at least for some period of time.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:01 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Free speech is when an individual is denied by an extension of the government from doing something.

You mean like how the law (an extension of the government) prevents South Park Studios from airing the episode they created on their own website because the right to do so is legally owned by Comedy Central?

And in any case, Comedy Central did this because of a death thread, not because they were offending people. If they were worried about losing customers because they offended them, they never would have aired South Park in the first place. Have you actually read this thread? The supremely naive claim that CC was just doing this out of their super religious sensitivity or something to avoid offending Muslims has already been addressed and refuted.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:04 pm UTC

mosc wrote:They are in business, and pissing off customers is bad business. Stop fucking inserting your morality over what is fundamentally a business decision on how to make the most money. They are required by law to ignore your morals whenever legally possible when they conflict with their ability to make money. If they don't, they should be fired and replaced with those that will.
This, actually, is why making your moral outrage public is the correct response to the situation- it makes it less costly for Comedy Central / Viacom to know how their behavior affects their reputation. If you think corporations should stand up to terrorists, you need to be louder than the terrorists to convince them.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Dream » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:11 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The supremely naive claim that CC was just doing this out of their super religious sensitivity or something to avoid offending Muslims has already been addressed and refuted.
The claim I made was that the scale and vitriol of the outcry may have given them pause, and in the face of it they made a hard headed corporate decision. Not that they suddenly came over all touchy-feely. This might have been a black swan moment for Comedy Central, having thought that South Park's content wouldn't ever get them into trouble, they supported it all the way. Now South Park is asking them to by their own actions (not South Park's) piss off huge numbers of people, and they aren't up for that.
gmalivuk wrote:You mean like how the law (an extension of the government) prevents South Park Studios from airing the episode they created on their own website because the right to do so is legally owned by Comedy Central?

South Park Studios sold the rights to that episode, so that right isn't theirs to exercise. That's a contract, not censorship.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: South Park Censored

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:12 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
mosc wrote:They are in business, and pissing off customers is bad business. Stop fucking inserting your morality over what is fundamentally a business decision on how to make the most money. They are required by law to ignore your morals whenever legally possible when they conflict with their ability to make money. If they don't, they should be fired and replaced with those that will.
This, actually, is why making your moral outrage public is the correct response to the situation- it makes it less costly for Comedy Central / Viacom to know how their behavior affects their reputation. If you think corporations should stand up to terrorists, you need to be louder than the terrorists to convince them.
Yeah, Comedy Central's money-making decisions are completely independent of people's morality if and only if every single person who has ever watched Comedy Central or paid to advertise on Comedy Central also makes all of their viewing or ad purchasing decisions completely independently of their moral opinions.

Which I find doubtful.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Aetius » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:16 pm UTC

mosc wrote:You are now an expert on the cost/benefit? Do you really think Comedy Central ignored "the almighty dollar" in favor of a more expensive censorship option?


Absolutely. 100%. Not even the slightest doubt in my mind.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: South Park Censored

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:30 pm UTC

Dream wrote:South Park Studios sold the rights to that episode, so that right isn't theirs to exercise. That's a contract, not censorship.
I agree with Dream on this point, by the way. If you sold the rights to something, it's not yours anymore. The issue of how Viacom should respond to radical Islamist threats, and how we should respond to their response, should be distinct from complaining that South Park got paid to produce their product.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: South Park Censored

Postby skeptical scientist » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:31 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, Comedy Central's money-making decisions are completely independent of people's morality if and only if every single person who has ever watched Comedy Central or paid to advertise on Comedy Central also makes all of their viewing or ad purchasing decisions completely independently of their moral opinions.
FTFY.

I don't buy the idea that Comedy Central's executives are completely amoral people who don't care about anything other than profit. Yes, they have a duty to the company, and yes, being part of a giant faceless corporation makes people more likely to ignore morality, but corporate executives are people too, and usually even act that way.
Last edited by skeptical scientist on Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests