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

21–30 of 60 posts

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

#21

Post by JustExAWS »

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.…

They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig

More to the point, you haven’t heard about their current season’s Trump episode?

The alt right aren’t exactly deep thinkers. It’s just like the police glorifying the Punisher.

https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-s...

Or MAGA conservatives playing “Born in the USA” without listening to the lyrics.

South Park mocks everyone.

https://www.salon.com/2017/09/15/why-south-park-is-better-ar...

The “alt-right” have always been part of America or have you never heard of Jim Crow and segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”?

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

#22

Post by rswail »

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.

The article quoted that they take $10m salaries each and the business invests in more production (eg movies, Book of Mormon musical etc).

So whether they donate or not personally, their billionaire status is based on owning their company (ie that is their total worth, not liquid assets).

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

#24

Post by saulpw »

graeme wrote: post #11
shazbotter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The capital gains tax could be 90%+ on any gains over $10m (and 99% over $100m), so they can still sell out, but it would cap liquid wealth at $100m dollars. However, they would still have a billion dollars of ownership, and the societal power that comes with being a billionaire, as they can leverage those assets to great effect without selling them. (As Elon Musk didn't actually pay $44b for Twitter.)

So I wonder if the government could levy a stock tax, in which every public stock was diluted by 1% per year, with non-voting stock going into a sovereign wealth fund. This would make for a gradual transition of companies from capitalist-owned to public-owned.

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

#25

Post by patates »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #20
patates wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> If something in the water makes a million people into disgusting mass shooters, we should look into it

You're using a completely made-up extreme example to make your point, but we're surrounded by real-world examples of free speech being heavily impacted. We don't need to invent scenarios.

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

#28

Post by JustExAWS »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #19
righthand wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I consider myself liberal on most issues - strong social safety, universal healthcare , pro vax, strong separation between church and state, and hate the demonization of other.

But this is political correctness gone crazy.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-gender...

I as a Black guy was also put off by the forced indoctrination that BigTech did post 2020 (when I worked there) with all of the “ally ship”, “DEI” crap I had to endure. I just wanted to do my job, get my money, get my RSUs and bounce after 4 years.

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

#29

Post by bigstrat2003 »

JustExAWS wrote: post #21
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.…

They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig More to the point, you haven’t heard about their current season’s Trump episode? The alt right aren’t exactly deep thinkers. It’s just like the police glorifying the Punisher. https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-s...…

> They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. Nor would I say they were really taking a stand on climate change in the first place. They just thought it would be funny to have Al Gore tilting at windmills (and indeed it was), and then thought it would be funny to have him proven right (and indeed it was). One of the things I appreciate about Trey and Matt is that they do what they think is funny first and foremost, rather than try to make the show a mouthpiece for their beliefs as many creators do.

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

#30

Post by JustExAWS »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #29
JustExAWS wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig More to the point, you haven’t heard about their current season’s Trump episode? The alt right aren’t exactly deep thinkers. It’s just like the police glorifying the Punisher. https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-s...…

> They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong. Eh, I wouldn't say that. Nor would I say they were really taking a stand on climate change in the first place. They just thought it would be funny to have Al Gore tilting at windmills (and indeed it was), and then thought it would be funny to have him proven right (and indeed i…

They were definitely as it’s climate change skeptics and changed their minds. They admitted as much.
Post reply on HN