Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well, South Park (the greatest show ever next to the Daily Show) recently did an episond called "It hits the fan" (formerly known as "The Shit Show") where the used the word shit 162 times. As funny as it was, it didn't come without a backlash. The thing is, the backlash didn't come until people found out that there was a lack of offense! So a week after the episode aired, Comedy Central started getting nasty e-mails. I guess they had to be told to be offended. I guess it goes to show that censorship is one big dumb bangwagon.

At 7/25/01 12:22 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Well, South Park (the greatest show ever next to the Daily Show) recently did an episond called "It hits the fan" (formerly known as "The Shit Show") where the used the word shit 162 times. As funny as it was, it didn't come without a backlash. The thing is, the backlash didn't come until people found out that there was a lack of offense! So a week after the episode aired, Comedy Central started getting nasty e-mails. I guess they had to be told to be offended. I guess it goes to show that censorship is one big dumb bangwagon.

I think those people might have sand in their vaginas. Mabye that's just my opinion.

Censorship is possibly the next worst thing to impotence.

So you are saying (I'm trying to get this straight, I am a bit confused) that initially, no one said anything about their use of the word "shit" in the show. People started realizing that no one made any stand against SP, Parker, Stone, or Comedy Central, so they made a big fuss because no one else made a big fuss?

If that's the case... ridiculous!

At 7/25/01 12:18 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: So you are saying (I'm trying to get this straight, I am a bit confused) that initially, no one said anything about their use of the word "shit" in the show. People started realizing that no one made any stand against SP, Parker, Stone, or Comedy Central, so they made a big fuss because no one else made a big fuss?

If that's the case... ridiculous!

Sorry about that... it was late and I was in a hurry...

But that's pretty much it. Comedy Central only recieved four e-mails concerning the episode... all positive. Once that was released to the public, e-mails poured in about how obsene that episode was for saying "shit". Although from what I heard, not many people noticed that they used the word "fag" also (such as in the song "Hey... there... Shitty Shitty Fag Fag..."). Odd considering that fag is more offensive than shit...

It's finally happened. Censorship has officially become useless due to people becoming completely desensitised to swearing. But now all those people will turn there attention to violence being influencial. Does it ever end?

At 8/7/01 07:23 AM, acidic_venom wrote: It's finally happened. Censorship has officially become useless due to people becoming completely desensitised to swearing. But now all those people will turn there attention to violence being influencial. Does it ever end?

Swearing is quite different than violence. Remember, fuck, shit, cock, tit, cunt and so forth are only words and not dirty at all. They are just label as a word you can't say (for no apperant reason). Violence is different. It actually hurts someone , unlike the word shit. You can say shit in real life... but you can't take a man's life... get it?

personally, i thought the show was corny. the whole saying shit so many times caused a dragon to come out of the ground was silly. south park is only funny when cartmen sais funny shit with his voice like "no kitty thats ma pot pie" the way he sais it is funny. shows like kids in the hall or funny because of situational comedy. the dude on there that played in "the godson" is really funny.

Ahh, I loved the heck out of South Park, that is, before I stopped watching TV. The way they make fun of our societies stupidity, and they don't give a shit about offending people, in fact, they try to! I love that. I guess we all have different opinions, but South Park for me is the coolest show ever made.

Anyways, Censorship is stupid, who are they trying to protect? The children? I remember swearing like crazy when I was a kid. Besides, if they don't see it on TV, they will see it in movies, on the internet, etc. It's all pointless.

At 7/25/01 08:52 AM, pyroarchy wrote: Censorship is possibly the next worst thing to impotence.

censorship has it's place. I'm very much in support of things such as the V-chip. A Op-in censorship. Although people have the right to express theirselves, a television net work is a business, not an art form for expression. ALthough Government censorships are wrong, network censorships are simply buisness practices.

At 8/10/01 04:59 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 7/25/01 08:52 AM, pyroarchy wrote: Censorship is possibly the next worst thing to impotence.

censorship has it's place. I'm very much in support of things such as the V-chip. A Op-in censorship. Although people have the right to express theirselves, a television net work is a business, not an art form for expression. ALthough Government censorships are wrong, network censorships are simply buisness practices.

I don't believe in the V-Chip myself. I feel that parents should get involved and not expect a microchip to do the work for them. Maybe it isn't an artform, but when someone says "shit happens" on ER, I don't really think they need to censor that! Now, if we avoid censorship, we do need to use common sense. In otherwords, know your audience. You can't say "I fucked the dog!" on Blues Clues! Of course, maybe common sense is too much to ask for people...

At 8/10/01 04:59 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 7/25/01 08:52 AM, pyroarchy wrote: Censorship is possibly the next worst thing to impotence.

censorship has it's place. I'm very much in support of things such as the V-chip. A Op-in censorship. Although people have the right to express theirselves, a television net work is a business, not an art form for expression. ALthough Government censorships are wrong, network censorships are simply buisness practices.

I don't believe in the V-Chip myself. I feel that parents should get involved and not expect a microchip to do the work for them. Maybe it isn't an artform, but when someone says "shit happens" on ER, I don't really think they need to censor that! Now, if we avoid censorship, we do need to use common sense. In otherwords, know your audience. You can't say "I fucked the dog!" on Blues Clues! Of course, maybe common sense is too much to ask for people...

At 8/10/01 04:59 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 7/25/01 08:52 AM, pyroarchy wrote: Censorship is possibly the next worst thing to impotence.

censorship has it's place. I'm very much in support of things such as the V-chip. A Op-in censorship. Although people have the right to express theirselves, a television net work is a business, not an art form for expression. ALthough Government censorships are wrong, network censorships are simply buisness practices.

I don't believe in the V-Chip myself. I feel that parents should get involved and not expect a microchip to do the work for them. Maybe it isn't an artform, but when someone says "shit happens" on ER, I don't really think they need to censor that! Now, if we avoid censorship, we do need to use common sense. In otherwords, know your audience. You can't say "I fucked the dog!" on Blues Clues! Of course, maybe common sense is too much to ask for people..

Rare triple post!

At 8/10/01 06:51 PM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 8/10/01 04:59 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 7/25/01 08:52 AM, pyroarchy wrote: Censorship is possibly the next worst thing to impotence.

censorship has it's place. I'm very much in support of things such as the V-chip. A Op-in censorship. Although people have the right to express theirselves, a television net work is a business, not an art form for expression. ALthough Government censorships are wrong, network censorships are simply buisness practices.

I don't believe in the V-Chip myself. I feel that parents should get involved and not expect a microchip to do the work for them.

So does everyone. Everyone would PERFER that everyone gets a perfect upbrining, but it's not going to happen. V-chip is just a way of making it easier on a parent, If you have the time to spend time with your kids and monitor what they watch then thats great for you, but it's not how everyone opperates.

Maybe it isn't an artform, but when someone says "shit happens" on ER, I don't really think they need to censor that! Now, if we avoid censorship, we do need to use common sense. In otherwords, know your audience. You can't say "I fucked the dog!" on Blues Clues! Of course, maybe common sense is too much to ask for people...

Again, theortically strong arguement, practically... Almost null.

I watched that SP show. I thought that it was great that people are starting not to care what you say. Violence seems to be the problem today, not swearing. All the parents that want to protect the 'children' are going to make this country horrible to live in. Next they are probably want the freedom of speech ammendment modified so it says freedom of speech except for fuck, shit, crap, ect. What is the world coming to?! I do agree with you GameboyCC(and I hope that you still aren't pissed at me). I do have a question though, what is this V- chip thing?

At 8/10/01 07:10 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote: I watched that SP show. I thought that it was great that people are starting not to care what you say. Violence seems to be the problem today, not swearing. All the parents that want to protect the 'children' are going to make this country horrible to live in. Next they are probably want the freedom of speech ammendment modified so it says freedom of speech except for fuck, shit, crap, ect. What is the world coming to?! I do agree with you GameboyCC(and I hope that you still aren't pissed at me). I do have a question though, what is this V- chip thing?

A V-chip is an opt-in censorship. Networks are still able to air uncensored programs, but for those who wish for censorship a small microchip of some sort censors profanity violence etc, for those who want it.

At 8/10/01 07:26 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/10/01 07:10 PM, ThunderBolt2001 wrote: I watched that SP show. I thought that it was great that people are starting not to care what you say. Violence seems to be the problem today, not swearing. All the parents that want to protect the 'children' are going to make this country horrible to live in. Next they are probably want the freedom of speech ammendment modified so it says freedom of speech except for fuck, shit, crap, ect. What is the world coming to?! I do agree with you GameboyCC(and I hope that you still aren't pissed at me). I do have a question though, what is this V- chip thing?

Anarchy explains the V-chip...

I believe that there are other forms of it out there, one that blocks out shows that have a certain rating, then there are the ones Anarchy mentioned that censors the profanity, and yet others that convert the explative into a word that is not as "obsene", yet makes no sense at all! Example:
Horseshit becomes Horseshoe
Cocksucker becomes Corkscrew
Dumb Fuck becomes Dump Truck
It goes on and on... the fear of those nasty four letter words will keep people fearful of anything that makes sense! I agree with Thunderbolt, violence is more acceptable than cursing! I honestly think america has it's priorities screwed up!

By the way, Thunderbolt... don't worry, I'm not pissed!

If you really want children to learn why somethings are unacceptable, do it the obvious way... TELL THEM for God's sake! One major problem I have is that some parents will just say "This is bad! You can't watch it!", I knew a kid who's Dad wouldn't let him watch "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" simply (and literally) because it was "silly". Yes kids, "silly"... I cannot think of a stupider reason than that to answer the question "Why can't I watch it?". Plus, not saying why something is bad (or silly) will only work against itself. Kids will get curious, this will only make them want to see it more. While I admit that they might also want to see it if you tell them why it may not be appropriate, there won't be as much of the forbiden fruit factor. That will lead to kids realizing "Hey, what else are my parents hiding from me?". Then the situation may differ depending if your parents went to Studio 54 or not...

Also, most kids shows are suprisingly violent/adult oriented. I've seen two different episodes of "Eek the Cat" where they've parodied "A Clockwork Orange". I've seen "Rutrats" episodes that featured characters vomitting. I saw an episode of "Aaaah Real Monsters" where this demon dude went into a guy brain and forced him to bite off his own big toenail. Hell, "Ren & Stimpy" (an excellent show) is on Nickelodien. Why the fuck is it on a kids network when it's unique brand of humor was mainly popular among college kids (even though I watched it to when I was young, good stuff that Ren & Stimpy)!!! Although, I do know that "Nick" had to censor the hell out of it, such as a part where Powder Toast Man saves the Pope! Now he saves a "goofy man in a funny hat!". I would think that more offensive among the religious!

I did see that the V-Chip's new spoke woman is this lady from The View. The one who talks about her involvement in S&M (after interviewing a real Dominatrix) on TV, and once showed her breats (actually they were artifical covers so she didn't really expose herself, but they looked pretty realistic when she first lifted her top up) on TV. Can we say hypocrate!

Anyone else have an opinion about censorship or the South Park episode?

Well I think censorship sucks. I was watching a futurama episode on channel 4 and it so didn't make sense because they had taken bits with swearing(Ass was taken out!) and a bit with a robot lapdancer!

At 8/15/01 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Well I think censorship sucks. I was watching a futurama episode on channel 4 and it so didn't make sense because they had taken bits with swearing(Ass was taken out!) and a bit with a robot lapdancer!

What are you're view on opt-in censorship. It seems the best option to me. I think that there should be no government imposed censorship, only network. (becuase it's a business and deserves practices) Those who wish to have censorship should opt-in like with the V-chip.

What are you're view on opt-in censorship. It seems the best option to me. I think that there should be no government imposed censorship, only network. (becuase it's a business and deserves practices) Those who wish to have censorship should opt-in like with the V-chip.

Yeah if you want to censor yourself, be my guest, you're ponly being a fool who can't accept the world for what it is.

At 8/15/01 06:59 AM, Slizor wrote:

What are you're view on opt-in censorship. It seems the best option to me. I think that there should be no government imposed censorship, only network. (becuase it's a business and deserves practices) Those who wish to have censorship should opt-in like with the V-chip.

Yeah if you want to censor yourself, be my guest, you're ponly being a fool who can't accept the world for what it is.

Well that's not nessicairly true. If some one for example is religious then they have the right to protect themselves from what they consider to be immoral behavior. Also If someone has a child and want's to spend some time with their kids, maybe watch some T.V. then they may not want him exposed to all sorts of vulgar obscinitys and/or sexual situations.

Well that's not nessicairly true. If some one for example is religious then they have the right to protect themselves from what they consider to be immoral behavior.

Which is the real world......

Also If someone has a child and want's to spend some time with their kids, maybe watch some T.V. then they may not want him exposed to all sorts of vulgar obscinitys and/or sexual situations.

Which they will encounter in the real world.....

At 8/15/01 07:16 AM, Slizor wrote:

Well that's not nessicairly true. If some one for example is religious then they have the right to protect themselves from what they consider to be immoral behavior.

Which is the real world......

Not nessicairly. However it may be the way you live your life, a religious man may not. He may keep to his religious community and not endeavour into behaviors he sees as immorale. I see there to be no reason why this is wrong.

Also If someone has a child and want's to spend some time with their kids, maybe watch some T.V. then they may not want him exposed to all sorts of vulgar obscinitys and/or sexual situations.

Which they will encounter in the real world.....

Yes, and whos to say when they are ready to this find this out? You? Or the parent?

Not nessicairly. However it may be the way you live your life, a religious man may not. He may keep to his religious community and not endeavour into behaviors he sees as immorale. I see there to be no reason why this is wrong.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying they are sheilding themselves from life.

Yes, and whos to say when they are ready to this find this out? You? Or the parent?

What about the child?

At 8/15/01 07:37 AM, Slizor wrote:

Not nessicairly. However it may be the way you live your life, a religious man may not. He may keep to his religious community and not endeavour into behaviors he sees as immorale. I see there to be no reason why this is wrong.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying they are sheilding themselves from life.

Sheilding themselves from what they see as immorale behavior. They obviously can make life without it, exclusivity is not remedied by forced inclusion.

Yes, and whos to say when they are ready to this find this out? You? Or the parent?

What about the child?

An Arguement can be raised that until a child has key descion making abilities. It's obvious that children can not cope for themselves and there fore need a guideing hand. This applys for morale construction too, not in terms of telling someone what's right and what's wrong but in helping establish the truth and making a morale base from which one can explore his/her thoughts. There really isn't an age when a child can become dependant, no arbitary number will do it, so it's up to the parent and not us to project some status que that one must reach.

Sheilding themselves from what they see as immorale behavior. They obviously can make life without it, exclusivity is not remedied by forced inclusion.

They don't have to watch TV do they?

An Arguement can be raised

Are you raising it?

that until a child has key descion making abilities. It's obvious that children can not cope for themselves and there fore need a guideing hand.

Who says they aren't born with key descision making abilities?

This applys for morale construction too, not in terms of telling someone what's right and what's wrong but in helping establish the truth and making a morale base from which one can explore his/her thoughts.

So if you are using this as your arguement, you are saying that human nature is not innate, so are you going to turn commie?

At 8/15/01 08:09 AM, Slizor wrote:

Sheilding themselves from what they see as immorale behavior. They obviously can make life without it, exclusivity is not remedied by forced inclusion.

They don't have to watch TV do they?

No, nor do they have to be subjected to what they consider to be depravity, my philosphey is each to his own, by deystroying censorsors and stopping the possiblitity of someone using a personal censor you are in fact doing the inverse of the former. You are subjecting them to your way.

An Arguement can be raised

Are you raising it?

Looks like it

that until a child has key descion making abilities. It's obvious that children can not cope for themselves and there fore need a guideing hand.

Who says they aren't born with key descision making abilities?

Studies. Life. Common Sense. Take a 10 year old put him in an apartment with a weeks worth of food and an arbitary amount of cash, how long will he last? Some can live, those who have developed those skills. Most will die, those whom need to be nutured.

This applys for morale construction too, not in terms of telling someone what's right and what's wrong but in helping establish the truth and making a morale base from which one can explore his/her thoughts.

So if you are using this as your arguement, you are saying that human nature is not innate, so are you going to turn commie?

Too a point human nature is innate, such as the common laws. However as I stated these are a base of which one must explore from. Morales are mainly effected by enviroment and outside effects I do belive, however No I'm not going to turn communist until you bring me a substantial theoretic proposal. Get ta' crackin!

At 8/15/01 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Well I think censorship sucks. I was watching a futurama episode on channel 4 and it so didn't make sense because they had taken bits with swearing(Ass was taken out!) and a bit with a robot lapdancer!

Ass was taken out!? Christ!