6 ms·

They have not changed. They still maintain this "enlightened centrist" persona, while claiming "both sides are the same". And their social commentary, if you

They have not changed. They still maintain this "enlightened centrist" persona, while claiming "both sides are the same". And their social commentary, if you could call it that, is very tame. They did briefly lean into making politicians out to be evil, but they kind of walked that back and now their story lines read more goofy than anything. The whole premise of the new season is telling. It's not about the suffering people have gone through due to wars (trade or military) or the food situation (the diarrhea parasite / cancer beef ep writes itself). Nope, it's about how the silly goose in office is renaming stuff. It's possible to be serious and funny, but the new stuff I've seen has been unserious and unfunny.

gjsman-1000 8d ago
Well, I think both sides are the same to an uncomfortable degree. To quote Bill Maher: “Trump has renamed Lake Ontario to the Lake of America. Of course, the left knows you can’t just rename things for political gain, just ask any Latinx birthing person.”
- wredcoll 7d ago
  You know, aside from, well, everything else that makes this a stupid comparison, the most important part is the motive that people like you seem so happy to ignore. Latinx is a not particularly useful attempt by a tiny group of people to make another tiny group of oppressed people feel slightly more comfortable Trump renamed lake ontario because he is a gigantic asshole.
- kg 8d ago
  His examples don't hold up. Latinx is attempting to provide an umbrella term for latino and latina, it's not renaming one of the two. "Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. (You can express your own feelings about the reality that this exists, but it does exist regardless of how you feel about it). On the other hand Lake Ontario is a real lake that already had a name and now someone is trying to give it a new one.
  - tzs 7d ago
    Latinx actually is comparable to what Trump is doing. It is outsiders trying to force a word on a community that doesn't want it. Only about 4% of the US Hispanic population uses it, 75% say it should not be used, and half have never even heard of the word. It doesn't fit Spanish grammar or pronunciation rules which makes it look even out of place.
  - sphinxterai 8d ago
    [flagged]
  - badc0ffee 8d ago
    You definitely need to be female to give birth, regardless of whatever gender identity label you give yourself (e.g. "man" or "non binary").
    - ceejayoz 8d ago
      Oh yeah? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/
      - liveoneggs 7d ago
        I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans.
        nostrademons 7d ago
        If you want your mind-blown, read up on feto-maternal microchimerism: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/ tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270
- _3u10 8d ago
  [flagged]
- jackp96 8d ago
  Eh, it's a decent joke, but it seems like the power dynamics here are a bit out of balance? Maybe I just live in a red area, but I see a lot of people judge liberals based on wild Twitter takes and random think pieces — which aren't actually policies/rule of law. If Joe Biden signed an EO denouncing the use of the phrase "pregnant woman" in government documents as a queerphobic slur or mandating Gov employees add their pronouns to their email signatures, I'd find this take more compelling. But he didn't.
  - _3u10 8d ago
    [flagged]
  - matwood 8d ago
    You reminded me that I had a person at work get mad that I used the phrase “9 women can’t have a baby in 1 month”. They couldn’t explain why other than I’m a man and can’t talk about women. So it’s not wild Twitter takes.
    - wredcoll 7d ago
      Boy, this sounds like a fair and honest representation of a totally real conversation you had.
      - matwood 7d ago
        That’s the exact conversation. We were talking about speeding up a development process and I used the classic saying in the context that some things just take time. It shook me a bit because I don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but me and the other people in the room sat there at a loss with what the issue was. She also couldn’t explain other than saying woman is bad, which showed she didn’t take the time to even try to understand what it meant. She was eventually fired in part for yelling at a guy in a huge meeting when he answered a question about to a hypothetical boss as “he” instead of she or they. So I understand your skepticism and would also be a skeptic if I didn’t live it.
- cogman10 8d ago
  Really bad example by Maher. There are much better examples where the 2 parties are frustratingly aligned to a large extent. For example, datacenters, ICE, and foreign policy. You can find a good number of democrats who are mad about Iran not because it's a dumb war, but because it wasn't done correctly by going through congress. Both sides are aligned pretty closely in making their donors happy above their voters. That keeps democrats from regulating like they should and it keeps republicans focused on "the enemies within".
  - laimewhisps 8d ago
    Maher himself is a perfect example of this. He's a hardcore Zionist warhawk who has an ideology nearly identical to Ted Cruz, yet he's a "liberal" (neoliberal). He also had Democrat Van Jones on his show making fun of dead Gaza babies. While I don't think the media and politician class represent the public (at all!), they are as aligned as lasers on promoting Israel.
EA-3167 8d ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-apology-manbearpig-skewering-al-gore-n934156 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-... How is that not changing?
- CobrastanJorji 8d ago
  See the word "rare" in the headline? They didn't go after Gore because he was wrong. They went after him because he committed the cardinal sin of really, earnestly taking a stand on a big issue. That is NEVER okay in South Park. There is never a correct side. Both sides must always be bad, on every issue. The "correct" view in South Park is always to not really take a stance on anything, and any character who is strongly on one side or the other on any issue will always be portrayed as wrong to do so. That's not to say that South Park doesn't have some great episodes poking fun at some very deserving targets. They absolutely do. Some real gems in recent seasons.
  - kulahan 8d ago
    As an example, you do realize that in the South Park episode where Gerald starts farting into a wine glass after buying an electric car, they're not making fun of people who buy electric cars, but rather people who think they're special for having bought an electric car, right? And with Gore, it's not that he took a huge stance, it's that his messaging was goofy and ineffective. Satire is dead, I guess.
    - CobrastanJorji 7d ago
      That's just it, though. The people who buy electric cars because they want to help the environment are wrong. They're only doing a good thing because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're just as bad as the polluters. The people who want to stop smoking are wrong because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're worse than the cigarette companies. The guy who want to help the environment is wrong because he's a self righteous prick who is full of himself. The folks raising awareness about North Korea are wrong because raising awareness isn't actually helping people directly. It's just a bunch of self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. Any one of those episodes has a perfectly valid point to make. But taken as a whole, the overarching message is that both sides are always bad, and the one that sounds like it wants to make the world a little better is probably worse than the evil they're opposing.
Whoppertime 8d ago
If they are centrist and treating both sides the same, what are your favorite Joe Biden jokes from South Park? Given the number of Trump jokes and the both sidesism you mentioned there should be a lot of material to work with
cucumber3732842 8d ago
>They did briefly lean into making politicians out to be evil, Shame. I wonder if they got "talked to."

gjsman-1000 8d ago

Well, I think both sides are the same to an uncomfortable degree. To quote Bill Maher: “Trump has renamed Lake Ontario to the Lake of America. Of course, the left knows you can’t just rename things for political gain, just ask any Latinx birthing person.”

wredcoll 7d ago
You know, aside from, well, everything else that makes this a stupid comparison, the most important part is the motive that people like you seem so happy to ignore. Latinx is a not particularly useful attempt by a tiny group of people to make another tiny group of oppressed people feel slightly more comfortable Trump renamed lake ontario because he is a gigantic asshole.
kg 8d ago
His examples don't hold up. Latinx is attempting to provide an umbrella term for latino and latina, it's not renaming one of the two. "Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. (You can express your own feelings about the reality that this exists, but it does exist regardless of how you feel about it). On the other hand Lake Ontario is a real lake that already had a name and now someone is trying to give it a new one.
- tzs 7d ago
  Latinx actually is comparable to what Trump is doing. It is outsiders trying to force a word on a community that doesn't want it. Only about 4% of the US Hispanic population uses it, 75% say it should not be used, and half have never even heard of the word. It doesn't fit Spanish grammar or pronunciation rules which makes it look even out of place.
- sphinxterai 8d ago
  [flagged]
- badc0ffee 8d ago
  You definitely need to be female to give birth, regardless of whatever gender identity label you give yourself (e.g. "man" or "non binary").
  - ceejayoz 8d ago
    Oh yeah? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/
    - liveoneggs 7d ago
      I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans.
      - nostrademons 7d ago
        If you want your mind-blown, read up on feto-maternal microchimerism: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/ tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270
_3u10 8d ago
[flagged]
jackp96 8d ago
Eh, it's a decent joke, but it seems like the power dynamics here are a bit out of balance? Maybe I just live in a red area, but I see a lot of people judge liberals based on wild Twitter takes and random think pieces — which aren't actually policies/rule of law. If Joe Biden signed an EO denouncing the use of the phrase "pregnant woman" in government documents as a queerphobic slur or mandating Gov employees add their pronouns to their email signatures, I'd find this take more compelling. But he didn't.
- _3u10 8d ago
  [flagged]
- matwood 8d ago
  You reminded me that I had a person at work get mad that I used the phrase “9 women can’t have a baby in 1 month”. They couldn’t explain why other than I’m a man and can’t talk about women. So it’s not wild Twitter takes.
  - wredcoll 7d ago
    Boy, this sounds like a fair and honest representation of a totally real conversation you had.
    - matwood 7d ago
      That’s the exact conversation. We were talking about speeding up a development process and I used the classic saying in the context that some things just take time. It shook me a bit because I don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but me and the other people in the room sat there at a loss with what the issue was. She also couldn’t explain other than saying woman is bad, which showed she didn’t take the time to even try to understand what it meant. She was eventually fired in part for yelling at a guy in a huge meeting when he answered a question about to a hypothetical boss as “he” instead of she or they. So I understand your skepticism and would also be a skeptic if I didn’t live it.
cogman10 8d ago
Really bad example by Maher. There are much better examples where the 2 parties are frustratingly aligned to a large extent. For example, datacenters, ICE, and foreign policy. You can find a good number of democrats who are mad about Iran not because it's a dumb war, but because it wasn't done correctly by going through congress. Both sides are aligned pretty closely in making their donors happy above their voters. That keeps democrats from regulating like they should and it keeps republicans focused on "the enemies within".
- laimewhisps 8d ago
  Maher himself is a perfect example of this. He's a hardcore Zionist warhawk who has an ideology nearly identical to Ted Cruz, yet he's a "liberal" (neoliberal). He also had Democrat Van Jones on his show making fun of dead Gaza babies. While I don't think the media and politician class represent the public (at all!), they are as aligned as lasers on promoting Israel.

EA-3167 8d ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-apology-manbearpig-skewering-al-gore-n934156 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-... How is that not changing?

CobrastanJorji 8d ago
See the word "rare" in the headline? They didn't go after Gore because he was wrong. They went after him because he committed the cardinal sin of really, earnestly taking a stand on a big issue. That is NEVER okay in South Park. There is never a correct side. Both sides must always be bad, on every issue. The "correct" view in South Park is always to not really take a stance on anything, and any character who is strongly on one side or the other on any issue will always be portrayed as wrong to do so. That's not to say that South Park doesn't have some great episodes poking fun at some very deserving targets. They absolutely do. Some real gems in recent seasons.
- kulahan 8d ago
  As an example, you do realize that in the South Park episode where Gerald starts farting into a wine glass after buying an electric car, they're not making fun of people who buy electric cars, but rather people who think they're special for having bought an electric car, right? And with Gore, it's not that he took a huge stance, it's that his messaging was goofy and ineffective. Satire is dead, I guess.
  - CobrastanJorji 7d ago
    That's just it, though. The people who buy electric cars because they want to help the environment are wrong. They're only doing a good thing because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're just as bad as the polluters. The people who want to stop smoking are wrong because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're worse than the cigarette companies. The guy who want to help the environment is wrong because he's a self righteous prick who is full of himself. The folks raising awareness about North Korea are wrong because raising awareness isn't actually helping people directly. It's just a bunch of self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. Any one of those episodes has a perfectly valid point to make. But taken as a whole, the overarching message is that both sides are always bad, and the one that sounds like it wants to make the world a little better is probably worse than the evil they're opposing.

Whoppertime 8d ago

If they are centrist and treating both sides the same, what are your favorite Joe Biden jokes from South Park? Given the number of Trump jokes and the both sidesism you mentioned there should be a lot of material to work with

cucumber3732842 8d ago

>They did briefly lean into making politicians out to be evil, Shame. I wonder if they got "talked to."