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

Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#131

Post by kyboren »

liveoneggs wrote: post #113
ipaddr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Christian right was trying to ban books in the 70s/80s. Fought heavy metal music in the 80s. Then you have 911 censorship. But after 2008 the left brought woke to power which saw banning people from twitter, social media, right speech. Then we reached covid which saw banning of facts. Deplatforming / banning / doxing became the norm until the return of Trump who then moved the needle and started pro Jewish censor…

Harry Potter is the funniest example because it started out being a target of the evangelical "right" and has become a target of the culture-war "left"!

Indeed.

I remember taking a California statewide essay exam in middle school whose prompt was specifically to argue for or against banning Harry Potter from the school library. I wrote a stridently anti-censorship piece extolling the virtues of literary freedom and calling out the censorious right for attempting to use schools not to educate, but to transmit catechism.

The essays were graded by (obviously heavily left-leaning) teachers from all over the state, with two teachers independently assigning a score and if their scores differed by more than one grade, another teacher would be tiebreaker.

I got the top score from both teachers--one of only a handful in the (large) school district. I even got an award from the local newspaper.

Now I see the same demographic take the polar opposite view and it's disappointing to say the least. Especially after the "anti" racism struggle session era, it seems to me that their real issue with the book bans wasn't the censorship; they just wanted to transmit the "right" catechism.

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#132

Post by liveoneggs »

ceejayoz wrote: post #64
badc0ffee wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely need to be female to give birth, regardless of whatever gender identity label you give yourself (e.g. "man" or "non binary").

Oh yeah? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/

I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans.

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#133

Post by nostrademons »

liveoneggs wrote: post #132
ceejayoz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/

I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans.

If you want your mind-blown, read up on feto-maternal microchimerism:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/

tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#134

Post by lobf »

Lammy wrote: post #116
lobf wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is their membership in this silly club the defining characteristic of either man? What does this have to do with their presidential platforms?

How could I know? He literally said it's a secret.

I don’t think you understood the question.

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#135

Post by liveoneggs »

plorkyeran wrote: post #111
nostrademons wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latinx is terrible, though, because it is something no native Spanish speaker would ever say. It's an example of the exact same sort of cultural imperialism that most of the people who like to say latinx rail against. The term that Hispanic queer and non-binary communities use is latine , which is pronounceable, follows normal Spanish grammatical rules, actually arose from the communities being discussed, and plurali…

It's almost like it's not a Spanish word. It was coined by native English speakers to describe themselves . It also happens to be a terrible English word, but the fact that it doesn't work in a different language's grammar isn't why it's a bad English word.

when did this retcon get invented?

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#136

Post by nosioptar »

optionalsquid wrote: post #112
badc0ffee wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely need to be female to give birth, regardless of whatever gender identity label you give yourself (e.g. "man" or "non binary").

That was conclusively disproven by Schwarzenegger et al. , 1994.

Our education system has failed younger generations. Everyone my age watched the documentary about Schwarzenegger's pregnancy.

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#137

Post by nosioptar »

GJim wrote: post #122
henryfjordan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perception is that the left is in favor of censoring slurs and hate symbols. As a reaction, Trump/MAGA has brought back the R-word for instance. Saying the Left are "pro-censorship" is not factually incorrect but definitely has a different connotation.

> the R-word ??

The r-word is "retard".

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#138

Post by brailsafe »

euroderf wrote: post #121
brailsafe wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when getting your first colonoscopy This must be why MAANGO companies require 24hrs of fasting prior to the on-site

MAANGO - this is the first time I've seen this. Decisions, decisions. Microsoft/Meta Amazon/Apple/Alphabet Netflix/Nvidia Google Oracle ?

Something like that, I just looked up whether there was a newer one and added an A for Apple since they try to present perhaps the most sterile public image in all of their dev videos and presentations. Maybe we need 3 As and two Ms

Microsoft Meta Anthropic Apple Amazon Netflix Google OpenAI

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#139

Post by psd1 »

Gud wrote: post #117
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the word "rare" in the headline? They didn't go after Gore because he was wrong. They went after him because he committed the cardinal sin of really, earnestly taking a stand on a big issue. That is NEVER okay in South Park. There is never a correct side. Both sides must always be bad, on every issue. The "correct" view in South Park is always to not really take a stance on anything, and any character who is stro…

Gore is a massive hypocrite and deserves the ridicule he gets. No champion of the environment gallivants in a jet and lives in a mansion.

Your observation of the contradiction is correct, but reductionist to a fault. If Gore would have been better than Dubya, and if campaigning requires travel, etc.

I take it you don't decry hydro for the use of concrete?

Re: Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Changing the Name of South Park to South America

#140

Post by psd1 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #59
jackp96 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely agree with you, but Democrats should drop "birthing persons" ASAP (if they haven't already) IMO. I'm all for inclusivity, but there's a certain point/form of language policing where you're asking folks to perform a lot of mental labor to adjust their language to reflect an extremely rare edge case. Like why? It's like if we insisted that people avoid the phrase "look at this" in general communication lest you…

Also, there's no such thing as being able to give birth and not being female. Many argue that "woman" refers to an internal sense of gender and not the physical reality of one's body, but even in that framework the term "female" refers to the nature of the body. And if you can give birth, you are female, because that is the configuration your body is in.

You've never heard of hermaphrodism? Biology is _complicated_
Post reply on HN