Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

readtrung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#11

Post by graeme »

shazbotter wrote: post #9
do_not_redeem wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the downsides of people knowing you have money is everyone on earth will judge you for what you do with it. I say let them enjoy it. If you must pressure someone to donate, pressure one of the "usual billionaires" who's funding their torment nexus with it.

There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.

The South Park owners don't have a billion dollars in liquid wealth each. They have ownership of south park, which is worth billions.

If you make them cut their assets down to $100 million each then they don't own South Park. And someone else gets to tell them what to write. Or they retire.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#12

Post by nurumaik »

shazbotter wrote: post #9
do_not_redeem wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the downsides of people knowing you have money is everyone on earth will judge you for what you do with it. I say let them enjoy it. If you must pressure someone to donate, pressure one of the "usual billionaires" who's funding their torment nexus with it.

There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.

I can live a life of comfort and luxury with $10k. Can you please donate everything above $10k of your networth right now?

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#13

Post by dmazin »

As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”?

Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#14

Post by righthand »

dmazin wrote: post #13

As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”? Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.…

You aren’t wrong that there is/was a group of people that consider themselves South Park Conservative but the creators reject the notion that South Park is specifically liberal or conservative, because their intent is to parody any people they can. The creators dislike political correctness but they also dislike the forceful nature of conservatives applying their beliefs on other people. Read the South Park wikipedia page, it explains it pretty well.

Insinuating that South Park conservatives evolved into the alt-right is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Trey and Matt didn’t invent disliking political correctness.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#15

Post by patates »

dmazin wrote: post #13

As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”? Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.…

A comedy show is just a comedy show. We're all responsible for who we become. If some purposefully terrible animated pixels inspire me to be a disgusting person, that's on me. If I play a shooting game and end up hurting someone, that's on me too (or my parents, if I'm young!). And if I spend too much time on HN, thinking AI is garbage, and then lose my job because I fell behind, that's also on me! (As well as starting to write my own comedy here on HN, knowing exactly what I'm getting into!)

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#16

Post by elefanten »

righthand wrote: post #14
dmazin wrote: post #13

As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”? Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.…

You aren’t wrong that there is/was a group of people that consider themselves South Park Conservative but the creators reject the notion that South Park is specifically liberal or conservative, because their intent is to parody any people they can. The creators dislike political correctness but they also dislike the forceful nature of conservatives applying their beliefs on other people. Read the South Park wikipedia…

I concur with this take. Like many facets of culture, some people/groups will project what they want onto a given cultural entity (South Park, in this case), but that doesn’t mean one should assume they speak for it.

For example, the “men’s rights activists” group appropriated the idea of “the red pill” from The Matrix. They certainly differ wildly in worldview from the Wachowski siblings.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#17

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

shazbotter wrote: post #9
do_not_redeem wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the downsides of people knowing you have money is everyone on earth will judge you for what you do with it. I say let them enjoy it. If you must pressure someone to donate, pressure one of the "usual billionaires" who's funding their torment nexus with it.

There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.

Sure you can. I have no problem with billionaires as long as they are enjoying their money without hurting people in the process. Having the money doesn’t mean you actively abuse your influence.

But once you have that kind of fuck off money and insist on abusing your power, or kowtowing to other people to get more power, and other BS, then you are an evil asshole. There’s a good reason why Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk etc rub people the wrong way. It’s not their wealth.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#18

Post by skybrian »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #2

South park is one of my favourite shows. I think that matt and trey aren't the usual billionaires but it would still be cool if they actually donate some of that money since they feel like the guys who don't need a billion dollars and feel humble imo.

I think it’s pretty cool that they bought Casa Bonita.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#19

Post by ChocolateGod »

righthand wrote: post #14
dmazin wrote: post #13

As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”? Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.…

You aren’t wrong that there is/was a group of people that consider themselves South Park Conservative but the creators reject the notion that South Park is specifically liberal or conservative, because their intent is to parody any people they can. The creators dislike political correctness but they also dislike the forceful nature of conservatives applying their beliefs on other people. Read the South Park wikipedia…

Disliking political correctness isn't even limited to the right on the political scale. Bill Maher has spoken out against it for example.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#20

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

patates wrote: post #15
dmazin wrote: post #13

As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”? Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.…

A comedy show is just a comedy show. We're all responsible for who we become. If some purposefully terrible animated pixels inspire me to be a disgusting person, that's on me. If I play a shooting game and end up hurting someone, that's on me too (or my parents, if I'm young!). And if I spend too much time on HN, thinking AI is garbage, and then lose my job because I fell behind, that's also on me! (As well as starti…

If something in the water makes a million people into disgusting mass shooters, we should look into it
Post reply on HN