Slashdot Mirror
South Park's Episode 201 — the Expurgated Version
Yesterday we mentioned the controversy facing Matt Stone and Trey Parker after last week's South Park (episode 200) depicted Muhammad, founder of Islam, concealed in a bear suit.
Today, penguinman1337 writes "Apparently, all is not well over at Comedy Central. The heavily censored version of episode 201 that aired last night has a lot of people angry, including the show's creators." From their note: "In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps."
At the risk of my good karma, you're a moron. They didn't censor the part with Jesus watching porn, or Buda doing lines of coke, they censored the speaking of the word "prophet muhammed" and the "I learned something today" speech that didn't even mention muhammed. All because people are scared of offending muslims.
I am more than a little tired of this crap of "Oh we have to be culturally sensitive towards the Muslims." No, we don't. We don't need to be culturally sensitive to anyone. I liked Philip Pullman's talk about this general idea when he said "No one has the right to live without being shocked, no one has the right to spend their life without being offended." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded).
The media needs to learn that about the Muslims as well. They aren't a special group any more than Christians or Atheists or anyone else. If they want to get whiny about people making fun of them the answer needs to be "Shut up, nobody cares," and then go back to making fun.
A very important part of free speech is the ability to make fun of things, including, maybe even especially, the things people hold sacred.
Come get me you extremist fucktards.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And this is what happens when you let terrorists censor you.
Because while Christians will turn the other cheek, and Buddhists likewise, Muslims will fucking kill you.
> All because people are scared of offending muslims.
The are not scared of offending Muslims, per se. They are scared of being murdered. Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Muslims told everyone else how to behave and what they are allowed to say?
You don't say?
I thought it was a coincidence that many of the most theocratic, oppressive, and evil regimes justify their existence with Islam.
This was of course the point of the South Park episode. They insulted every religion in the world in that episode, and only one threatened violence and managed to get their bit censored. It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.
Ah, comedy central has made it clear that in response to death threats, they'll censor themselves.
Someone needs to death threat them into releasing the episode.
So we respond in kind. Threaten violence if they censor stuff. I'm sure they'll respond in a reasonable manor.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The terrorists have won.
They won on October 26, 2001, the day that George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into law.
This ain't rocket surgery.
RTFK
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
and he is right to be afraid. even egyptian reformers were killed, just because they proposed the possibility of maaaybe reinterpreting koran with today's principles.
Read radical news here
Uh, says now that they can't show it.
I just went to that link and submitted this:
"I just want you guys to know that in bowing to pressure from a bunch of religious radicals, you have successfully offended millions of Americans who believe freedom of speech needs to be preserved and protected. You have failed the american people and let the agents of terror dictate your actions.
Now that you have set this precedent, radicals know that all they have to do to get their way is to threaten with violence. Thanks for setting back hundreds of years worth of progressive thought and returning us to the days when the church gets to dictate what the masses can view."
You might need to re-read 1984 yourself. One of the points was that the Party itself was not actually that powerful; it appeared so because most people were willing to censor their own speech and even thoughts (see: doublethink). The Party only needed to worry about the people who weren't.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Ah, the classic "it's not censorship if it's not the government" argument.
The problem is that if all the major sources of entertainment and news choose to censor themselves then you still end up with a situation that's just as bad as government censorship, it's just the reasons for censorship that are different (money + fear instead of ideology).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
And there are Muslims that I'm more afraid to be around than the 'gun-toting Americans' I went to school with.
What's your point?
(For record, I know what you were trying to say, and it's bullshit. There are crazies in every group. Just because some asshole said he wants to kill Muslims is no reason to brand all 'gun-toting Americans' as genocide-supporters.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
It's easy to bash on Comedy Central when you aren't the one in danger.
Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?
Man, am I getting tired of muslims being offended. Hey, muslims, here's a news flash! WE'RE ALL OFFENDED! ALL THE TIME! People with half the guts of a mouse just live with it, and it's not rocket science, either. You just... live with it. It's really just that simple, and you're not beyond it. Get over yourselves, you whining, gutless, fucking pussies.
Man, you sound like Cheney. When you aim south, somebody’s going to get shot in the north! ^^
Or in other words: You deserve an award for how much you miss the point. (And not a good award.)
Protip: There was a time when Christians acted like this. It’s called THE DARK AGES!
It was a desperate time. With crusades, inquisitions, but most of all, power-greedy dicks controlling people.
This is the exact same thing now. Only in the Muslim world.
It does not matter AT ALL, which “religion” it is.
Because religion really is a protective mechanism gone haywire, causing a delusional reality distortion. Which is then used by some real immoral assholes, to manipulate people, to do shit like this.
But your anger only fuels it even more. And I think you know this, and do it deliberately. Or at least should know it, if you want to call yourself educated and better.
What do you think you going to get, by acting like a dick and strengthening their disease even more?
Wanna know how to get them out of their delusion? The same thing as with schizophrenia: Offer them a better alternative, and let them keep their pride. Let them migrate to that better alternative, until they simply stop having the need for the delusion.
Then they naturally will stop caring for “Muhammed”.
Of course this is easier said than done. But I don’t see an alternative. Or do you really want to insult and kill disabled people? I couldn’t be that heartless. Because it would make me no betther than the mullahs or them.
Wanna know what I do when I meet a religious extremist? :)
I do a little nice gesture, that makes their life better, and causes them to instantly like me.
When I do it right, and give them some time, I can pull a joke on Muhammed, and they won’t hate me, but join in in it.
The little glimmer of hope that we’re actually nice people and will together make things good, is already enough.
Try it. And you may even make your enemies your allies.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Trey and Matt should have Mohammed in every fucking episode they air from now on. I don't just mean in the intro to the show, I mean like a new character like one of the boys.
Let those censoring assholes fucking WORK to achieve censorship...
For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry. The worry is that any depiction could become the focus of worship, and the depiction itself could take the place of what it represents.
Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park. They're so anxious over this possibility, these groups have threatened to suborn the murder of Matt Stone & Trey Parker by dispatching roving death squads.
Don't click away to a calendar app—I assure you, it is 2010 and this is actually happening. (And I understand why some of you with mod points might choose "Funny" for this post, which is totally fine, but I promise everyone that this is as unbiased an accounting of the facts as I find myself able to give.)
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post
Sorry, the techno-savvy hard-line Muslim can't come to the phone right now. He's out to lunch with the gadget-hoarding Amish electrical engineer.
Bunch of cowards running things at Comedy Central administration. They clearly didn't learn the lesson of the Cartoon Wars episodes, every time you give in to bullies, you only embolden them to ask for more next time.
Sounds like what's needed is for someone to threaten them unless they take the beeps out.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'm a practicing Muslim ("fundamentalist" if you prefer) but most Muslims and Islamic scholars do not espouse the RevolutionMuslim kind of ideology. The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.
They believe that a book is divine and they adore a piece of rock and they are afraid of idolatry? This is something I will never understand.
Where does this "right" come from?
From the Creator. The creator who creates love in peoples hearts. Why should the institutions and creations of man take precedence over the creators work? Same sex relationships are seen throughout nature. Yet in man, institutions that have turned their face away from God call this "sinful". It is those institutions that violate the sanctity of life and love in God's eyes.
It is a man-made "church" that proclaims right and wrong and claims to speak for God -- yet their words go against the habits of creatures on this earth -- it pretty obvious that they are "unnatural" -- a perversion of the natural order God established. Let each be attracted to who they will and be in alignment with God's blessings.
If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species.
It doesn't need to be furthered -- it needs to be nurtured. Men on the make ain't doing alot of nuturing any time I've seen. Once married, maybe, Male couples can nuture as well -- when love flourishes -- as it does among female couples. IT's not as easy for male couples but it's relatively easy for for female couples to reproduce -- and with science, with each others genes!
But that's not really the point of love. It's about loving and giving to another, love without an agenda -- a type of love that heterosexual couples find it harder to experience.
It is an inherrently selfish pursuit that leaves the notion of service to your fellow man (make jokes about that if you like!) completely out of the picture.
Not having children and devoting your life to science and art is selfish? Not having children is selfish? How about men who have to spread their seed into an over populated world who disproportionally will be the ones to leave their partner to raise a child alone? Who's selfish here? Statistically, it's the men who walk. You can be sure that gay couples won't be so selfish as to use impregnation as a way of enslavement or blithely leave behind single parents or children on the street.
Statistics and reality don't backup your claims of selfishness. Caring first for themselves and their partners is doing the earth alot more good than those who are polluting the world with more uncared for and uncherished children (not that all are, but a sizable percentage of your supposedly "not selfish" net parents will produce such a result).
Normalization of homosexuality is foolish as it is (mathematically speaking) not normal.
Mathematically speaking, left handers are not normal. Should we pass laws to stop them from marrying? They might pass on left handed genes...
If you think about it -- if gays do marry, they will be less likely to reproduce than their het counterparts, and genetically, they won't contribute as much to the gene pool -- but if honored and accepted into society, they will help raise the standard of living for today. Since they have no children of their own -- many make great workers in child care -- or would if it wasn't for anti-gay propaganda. By any measure -- absolute or per-capital, more heterosexual males are abusers of children than any other group. NOT gay men. And lesbians? I've heard of a few freak incidents of a woman with lesbian inclinations going over the edge, but those I've who like to be around children are very caring and make ideal child care workers -- they don't have to go home to take care of their own.
Opening recognition for gay couples leaves the floodgates open for polygimous groups and other non-traditional spousal units to get their "rights" recognized.
And??
"It takes a village to raise a child" used to be common sense. Children were better off when groups of adults were around to interact with them. In today's society, having only 2 adults, both of whom are