there are few things that irritate me more than the honest opinions of ignorant and meanspirited individuals
i'm not necessarily saying that's what Louis CK is, but a lot of supposed comedy comes off that way to me
and then the fans go 'that's so true' and 'finally, someone has the balls to tell it like it is' and ugh
I remember for a few years in like the 2006-2008 range it seemed like every comedy show on television was a standup routine of some dude or another talking about how women weren't funny.
there are few things that irritate me more than the honest opinions of ignorant and meanspirited individuals
i'm not necessarily saying that's what Louis CK is, but a lot of supposed comedy comes off that way to me
and then the fans go 'that's so true' and 'finally, someone has the balls to tell it like it is' and ugh
That's really not the kind of honesty I mean.
I may be out of my depth in trying to explain this, but whatever. Louis CK doesn't strike me as actually holding those opinions, or like the kind of comedian who "tells it like it is." It's more like he portrays himself as an incredibly sad, pathetic individual and the opinions he expresses in his acts come from that place. His tone makes it abundantly clear that most of the time you're not supposed to agree with him.
also that macro from South Park people always post on Facebook about how either everything is ok to make fun of or nothing is with the implied "and that's why racism is OK!" at the end.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Directed comedy (ie. "making fun of" something or someone) has a very simple principle. If it's yourself, or someone above your social position, it's OK, at least to an extent. If it's someone below your social position, you're just a dick.
Directed comedy (ie. "making fun of" something or someone) has a very simple principle. If it's yourself, or someone above your social position, it's OK, at least to an extent. If it's someone below your social position, you're just a dick.
Calling Louis CK's style "directed comedy" might be a bit of a stretch. If anything, he never seems to be going after anyone but himself.
Directed comedy (ie. "making fun of" something or someone) has a very simple principle. If it's yourself, or someone above your social position, it's OK, at least to an extent. If it's someone below your social position, you're just a dick.
Calling Louis CK's style "directed comedy" might be a bit of a stretch. If anything, he never seems to be going after anyone but himself.
Directed comedy (ie. "making fun of" something or someone) has a very simple principle. If it's yourself, or someone above your social position, it's OK, at least to an extent. If it's someone below your social position, you're just a dick.
Calling Louis CK's style "directed comedy" might be a bit of a stretch. If anything, he never seems to be going after anyone but himself.
I am no longer talking about Louis CK.
I didn't think you were talking specifically about him.
South Park is generally wittier than Seth McFarlane's output, and usually more directly topical than The Simpsons, but the writers' attitude really grates on me
and i dislike how viewers can seemingly overlook the fact that they're being preached at providing the moral is cynical, family-unfriendly, and pretends to be the rational/commonsense middle ground between two better-known opposing points of view.
South Park is generally wittier than Seth McFarlane's output, and usually more directly topical than The Simpsons, but the writers' attitude really grates on me
and i dislike how viewers can seemingly overlook the fact that they're being preached at providing the moral is cynical, family-unfriendly, and pretends to be the rational/commonsense middle ground between two better-known opposing points of view.
This is more or less exactly why I find the show as unpalatable as I do.
I think that complaining about "preachiness" is sort of a tangible details thing; it's obvious, so people will go for it, but it's not necessarily the root of the issue. It's more about what the moral actually is and how well the show handles it. Plenty of "preachy" works have been good.
I think that complaining about "preachiness" is sort of a tangible details thing; it's obvious, so people will go for it, but it's not necessarily the root of the issue. It's more about what the moral actually is and how well the show handles it. Plenty of "preachy" works have been good.
Yes but in this case the moral (South Park tends to go for your textbook "rational centrist" bullshit) is neither good nor presented well.
In 2012 were there South Park episodes about how you should vote Libertarian instead of "choosing the lesser of two evils"? I would almost bet money on it.
I think that complaining about "preachiness" is sort of a tangible details thing; it's obvious, so people will go for it, but it's not necessarily the root of the issue. It's more about what the moral actually is and how well the show handles it. Plenty of "preachy" works have been good.
Yes but in this case the moral (South Park tends to go for your textbook "rational centrist" bullshit) is neither good nor presented well.
I'm not disagreeing.
Although to be honest I find that even in episodes with really bad morals the episode itself tends to be funny.
All fiction, all art, conveys a message to some degree. Especially the ones that don't turn to the audience and say, "Here's what we learned today, kids...", and the ones that don't have the characters debate a point and then one side of the debate is eventually proven wrong and stupid. It's the points that the story simply presents as true without any sort of argument—the points that the story assumes are so blindingly obvious that no argument is necessary—that sneak past the audiences's mental defenses and change their minds.
For that reason, I tend to not care one way or the other if a work is "preachy".
That's not a defense of South Park. I don't care for it and have only watched two or three episodes.
I don't particularly dislike South Park, but the moralising, both covert and overt, is frequently tedious and off-putting, and there are generally better things that I could be watching.
Better go chase him down and get your boy back, Vash.
Better hire some bad dudes to go through a couple of 2.5d fighting stages to get him back, bruh.
Better grab a copy of Nintendo Power and put in the cheat code for infinite ferrets so you don't have to token feed past the Robin Thicke Mutant boss, bromide.
Fair point. Couldn't have you naming all seventy-seven. That would be rude. But really, you dare snub my girl Mary, who according to the Brostic Brospels received Brosis through the very incarnation of the Based God himself?
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Comments
Maybe it was just what I happened to catch, idk.
South Park in general is a case in point
and i hate that macro
it doesn't even make sense, there's no logic to it
it's just an empty assertion, and a counterintuitive one at that
and i dislike how viewers can seemingly overlook the fact that they're being preached at providing the moral is cynical, family-unfriendly, and pretends to be the rational/commonsense middle ground between two better-known opposing points of view.
It's like watching a fucking Bible Book program.
or Veggie Tales, to use a less obscure example.
For that reason, I tend to not care one way or the other if a work is "preachy".
That's not a defense of South Park. I don't care for it and have only watched two or three episodes.
I can assume Tumblr is not taking this well?
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
it is a repulsive analogy, though
does anyone say that? why would anyone say that
of course some people say that