Matt Stone and Trey Parker are libertarians and, thus, complete dickwads. discuss

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I don't think I could watch South Park again, really. Asshats. Team America was the final straw.

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:19 (twenty-one years ago)

libertarians vs libertines

― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

vs Liberty X

― lukey (Lukey G), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Libertarianism does not mean being a unabomber or Bush-voter -- far from it. GWB uses libertarian rhetoric, but he isn't really a libertarian.

― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I know. Although abolishing a welfare state entirely is worse than anything Bush could do, I'd have thought.

― political pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:30 (twenty-one years ago)

What are the grounds here? What have they said about it?

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

People who earnestly care about stupid shit like what political affiliation Trey Parker and Matt Stone are - to the degree that they decide to not watch their show because of this - are already boring anoraks who don't get invited to the good parties. But then to go that next, even more unneccessary step, and make the whole self-righteous yet irrelevant thing into an internet troll... just, why?

Furthermore, there are degrees of libertarianism, just as there are with any school of thought, so abolishing the welfare state entirely isnt necessarily something they would agree with. Troll, meet strawman.

― Mediawhore, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that was what I was wondering, yeah.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Bah, the meanies just deleted my thread about how chicks like money and diamonds. They sure are strict these days.

P.S. It just seems the more interviews I read with Matt and Trey the more I dislike them and what they claim to stand for.

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, every interview (which is not many, admittedly) seemed to be 'tongue in cheek' at the best of times.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Are women responsible for capitalism Mark?

See:

*Man likes woman. Badly. Especially hot ones.

*Hot chicks aint gonna plug for an average/ ugly/ very old guy...

*Unless the average/ ugly/ very old guy has money and can buy her cool shit...

*So the average/ ugly/ very old guy works to get ahead and - having never been treated nicely by the ladies - suddenly finds himself a chick magnet in, typically, his 30s or 40s...

*So he's gonna have some FUN.

*Money now goes on the women. Diamond prices rise/ shares rise/ economy rises/ capitalism continues because...

*Hard done by men like their hot young ladies.

Opinion?

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Capitalism produces women

― Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:19 (twenty-one years ago)

And men

― Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:19 (twenty-one years ago)

well there are many libertarianisms, including my least favorite, the pop-independent or standup-panderer "didja ever notice that politics is like total bullshit" variety, which is without a doubt what parker and stone are about. i hate it worse than even the randians, if you can believe.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:21 (twenty-one years ago)

calum i'm trying to believe that even you are not fucking stupid enough to put these two sentences together:

Bah, the meanies just deleted my thread about how chicks like money and diamonds. They sure are strict these days.

P.S. It just seems the more interviews I read with Matt and Trey the more I dislike them and what they claim to stand for.

without it being a joke. but you are that fucking stupid.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think South Park says 'politics is bullshit'. Parker and Stone wd be Tory Anarchists in England, and there are worse things you can be. Politics, as in the meaningless 'struggle' between near-identical parties, *is* bullshit. But that doesn't mean that politics is bullshit. That's what I take from P&S.

― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

translation for the uninitiated: team america takes the piss out of michael moore

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)

My opinion? I don't recognise the scenario in the day to day life of people in general.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:30 (twenty-one years ago)

well then having a 'stance' if you can call it that, not even being a cogent 'third party' perspective, but just based on a self-aggrandizing need to say "no i am not of the two established political organizations. they are both uncool in equal ways. here are a few jokes on this subject"--so what? there's nothing there, they AREN'T LIBERTARIANS, it's just "man those dumocrats and repiglicans sure are totally LAME huh" fuck off south park, time's up.

frankly i'd venture that there has never been a meaningless struggle between near-identical parties in history ever.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:32 (twenty-one years ago)

hey you remember that john kerry guy? hunting was his life!

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:34 (twenty-one years ago)

haha i haven't even seen they're puppet movie yet. if anything i like moore LESS, and takedowns of him are always welcome, unless they are stupider and more wrong than he is, which, is often.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

the 2004 US elections spring to mind. or the 2005 uk elections. the differences are not big enough to signify. and the acceptance of this particular form of democracy has already limited the extent to which differences are possible. 'south park' is not meant to be a televisual 'new republic', it's a blast-all-targets satire, and a bloody good one. episode on ADD spring to mind as very powerful and wise.

― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Porn star Marilyn Chambers ran for Vice Prez of Libertarian Party in Utah.

Uhm... it's not a very credible really is it?

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh wow. Another Calum thread about how Americans suck because he couldn't get on there (with his desperation sideline in well-they-all-have-to-agree-with-me-on-this (please?) rubbing against the Trolling For Beginners impulse). It's good that he has such range - women who wouldn't give him the time of day are ugly, unwelcoming London is the worst place on Earth, extremely popular women are just whores, women only want money because it's certainly not him that's the matter, etc. (xp - oh wait)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"oh wait" indeed.

how similar to calum are we?

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:40 (twenty-one years ago)

For the record, I love America. Very, very much.

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

â€œOh waitâ€? it became a thread about those other things too.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I love women too.

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:49 (twenty-one years ago)

everything is always someone elses fault

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)

no, sorry, it's the same get-out-clause way of writing about "the issues" that Law and Order uses, i.e. the thing that allows the episode to end is what they have to CHANGE about the issue, the achilles heel that has to be grafted onto the intended target when there aren't any in life. now, l&o, which i adore, is all about ritual and formula, and so its rigging of the dramatic deck doesn't try to hide itself, and allows the issue, whatever it is, to breathe a little in the interim.

south park's "issue episodes" can't say anything BECAUSE it's a "blast-all-targets satire." even their first movie (which i like a lot) isn't especially brave. censorship is bad! ADD is overdiagnosed in young boys! film at 11.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, in answer to your main question, it's similar to subscribing to "Anarchist", in that it's not a case of subscribing to all things that 'libertarianism' is supposed to be. Bit like "Socialism", and even "Capitalism" where everything that actually happens is a compromised version of the 'rules'.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

oops sorry, wrong thread!

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Any doctrine which exists to hurt the poor and society's weakest is dangerous and offensive, but - hey - you can always ignore us political lefties eh? This is the same forum where all homeless people wereonce categorised as being nothing more than druggies after all...

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, libertinarianism is very much "give the freedom to the people who can afford it".

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:56 (twenty-one years ago)

one would normally presume that sympathy for poor people and homeless people would also presuppose, for example, respect for women.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)

calum what is your fucking problem? no one in this particular conversation has said anything like that. amazingly, out of your shitty thread, there is a conversation happening here.

besides, there's the interesting thing about poorer people really liking libertarian-style rhetoric! for one, because it insists that they are not "society's weakest" and should distrust people who say so...

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I have much respect for women, sadly I just meet the wrong ones.

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Libertarianism is not about 'giving freedom' because in libertarian thought freedom is not something possessed by the state to give to the citizen. This line is congruent with left politics, clearly.

― Miles Finch, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

And WTF? Sympathy for the weak and the poor should equal respect for women becase...? Because women are somehow weak and poor? Is that it? Man, that is fucking offensive considering I strongly believe women to be equal to men in the work force etc - you cock.

And isn't it surprising that Libertarians tend to be middle class and/ or rich kids who have never wanted for anything... just like Parker and Stone oddly enough.

― Political Pete, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:05 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, Miles, my choice of phrase was off. What do I know?

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

calum can you fucking read? there are plenty of ppl who are receptive to libertarian or lassaiz-fairist (i never spell that right) talk who aren't middle class at all! they're poor! it's a wierd political problem. why i'm talking about it with you is the real mystery...

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:09 (twenty-one years ago)

ILX is morally flawed because people there don't like me, people who object to my self-serving issue-framing are right-wingers, power-desperate exploitation of Junior Varsity Trollbait... zzzzz.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:15 (twenty-one years ago)

it's like all those hip hop records you get where one track of eloquently argued political polemic is followed by four minutes of dissing one's ho/bitch. if you can't see that the latter negates the former then you have very little understanding of anything.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

What's wrong with being a librarian?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)

marcello it's the other way around. on nearly every rap record i can think of it's the ho/bitch stuff that's about 50 times as well done as anything "political". not that i disagree w your point.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:26 (twenty-one years ago)

it's the old make a better world vs make a better record dilemma innit. schoolly-d or arrested development.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:30 (twenty-one years ago)

well i don't go looking for politix on my white records either.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I hated South Park the Movie, and whilst aspects of South Park were funny, every interview I've seen with the Stone and Parker makes me dislike them intensely. Their calling their band 'DVDA' was kind of eveything you need to know.

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:34 (twenty-one years ago)

why didn't you like the movie Dave?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)

... best Hollywood musical since "Cabaret"

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the same forum where all homeless people wereonce categorised as being nothing more than druggies after all...

The 347 posters who all unanimously agreed that this is true stand by it and they've got the scientific facts to prove it

― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm still undecided if calum's method of provoking argument (reluctant to use 'debate' term) is really worth keeping threads like this unlocked

― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I just hate fun. No, seriously, it was just incoherent. I think South Park only works in small doses. Stretching the story for ages doesn't help as it exposes the fact that the shows only work as 30 minute bites sizzed chunks of nonsense (see most sit-coms made in movies - On the Buses etc)

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't agree with that. i thought you had a bigger problem with the creators or something. in Parker and Stone's early interviews they claimed that they had no control over the mass-merchandise machine and make no actual money from the merch. - perhaps this has changed in recent years. parker also claimed that he was 'one of those people who HAD to have a lot of money/comfortable life' and so set about acquiring that, but i'm not sure how secure and/or wealthy he was growing up.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 13:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I used to really like South Park, but I got kind of sick of it by 1/2 way through the second series.

I'm on a mailing list where there are a few US-style lib people posting, as in supporters of the LP, Randists, or W.H.Y. They're decent enough people, really, and not at all like the caricature (sp?) upthread. That said, I don't think the Lib philosophy is a workable one, it seems to me to kind of anti-societal, like everyone for themselves, and I don't agree w/that.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 14:05 (twenty-one years ago)

btw, calum, I'm on an unmoderated forum (by unmoderated, it means if you really persist in acting like a compete dickhead, you get booted off, but that's the only moderation they do) and they were trying to get more people posting. If you like, I'll put up the url.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

To be honest, I'm really against it because of them; they take the view that offending people is a good thing; you're slaying sacred cows and refusing to be bowed by convention. Sometimes it's true. Sometimes though, it's because you like offending people because you're a prick, and I think they're more the latter.

It's what Private Eye would be like if less urbane and more conversant with the wilder shores of internet niche porn.

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

hmm, i don't react to well to people of that 'just like offending people' mentality/approach usually so am not sure (e.g. the 'trick people' stuff on Jackass, Chris Morris or Dom Joly stuff tends to leave me cold...less so with animated fiction ala South Park - tho it's part of the reason i can't stand the way The Simpsons has gone - strange that SP is the exception. perhaps it's because of what else they put into it or they just do it so well)

― Stevem On X (blueski), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

That "Team America" looks very poor by being very well executed, and no doubt will continue to provide the level of luxury that they are accustomed to.

Though it looks quite offensive to the rest of the world, for differing reasons that are too obvious to relate.

"South Park" still impresses me, on and off.

The fact is that their 'libertarianism' maybe the background to why they made "Team Am", and why it's offensive. And why they made "SP" and why that is so good.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 09:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I find South Park to be usually very, very funny. But this does not prevent Parker and Stone from being a couple of dick-wads. They aint worthy to lick Sean Penn's marble swimming pool.

― Funny Frank, Wednesday, 19 January 2005 09:52 (twenty-one years ago)

And so we agree, shake hands, and depart.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 10:01 (twenty-one years ago)

ew clammy

― Stevem On X (blueski), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I would agree with Trey Parker and Matt Stone politically, and sometimes I see things on South Park that I am somewhat offended by - but hey, it's a comedy, people, and frequently a very funny one. So if it bothers you, don't watch it.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.