south park fandom safe space

this is a place for south park fans who feel persecuted in the fandom for being critical & anxious about the issues it tackles and how it tackles them. the priority is to make you feel safe and loved in this fandom. i track the tag safe park

[safepark]

I can't believe this is real I thought reddit was lying. You realize this is a textbook safespace right? A safespace is a place where you are free to dish out criticism but will take none, it isn't simply a place that contains no criticism. I really hope you eventually see that South Park itself is trying to show just how wrong places like this are, and how they are really fucking up social media/the internet.

I’m personally finding it hilarious that you (and south park, but that’s not my point here) find the idea of safe spaces ridiculous in that we refuse to take criticism and only criticize things ourselves - it sounds like you want to defend south park, which criticizes things, but you don’t want us to criticize it. hmm.

On another note, we welcome critics of this blog, but considering they’re just as hypocritical as you in that most people who hate this blog want to censor us for bringing up the idea of censorship - or, you know, basic human decency - it kind of renders a lot of their points moot. Honestly the narrative of this whole argument is that “you shouldn’t be allowed to say whatever you want so I can say whatever I want!” It is circular and illogical. Try again.

[safepark]

How does it feel to run this "safe space" South Park blog when entirety of the show's most recent episode was devoted to the concept of how dumb "safe spaces" are?

have you looked at all at this blog because if you have you’d know that it’s a place for fans to criticize the show, the opposite of the “safe space” episode (which is another matter) where they wanted to do anything free of criticism

[safepark]

Are you going to also get on the writers for how they portray right-wingers, Christians, Republicans, and non-progressives or are you okay with offensive humor that isn't aimed at you?

Humor that isn’t aimed at “you”? There are multiple mods that work on this blog and even more individuals that identify as left-leaning. We’re not monolith; there’s disagreement and variance in our perspectives. For example, from your ask- being Christian and being liberal aren’t mutually exclusive (though are sometimes the cause internal conflict). I’d like to think we would take those sorts of things into consideration.

For me, personally, if their portrayal of a right-wing issue was wildly off-base and someone came to this blog wanting to talk about it I would listen. Perhaps I wouldn’t agree and challenge what was said but I would listen. However, I would be puzzled since these sorts of groups have historically been of little interest and value to most right-wingers, if the current fandom tag is any indication. Also, it’s been my experience that most non-progressives are pretty proud of how unoffended they are by the show, but if you have something you want to get off your chest regarding how the show has handled a topic then by all means, be my guest.

[safepark]

I'm honestly asking out of curiosity and not judgement: How can you love a show that's known for it's dark/offensive humor, but then analyze it and want to see less of that?

You are correct in saying that the show is known for pushing the envelope, but I’m curious why analyzing it seems so strange to you? Comedy/satire is so often much more than just comedy. It has the potential to be political, philosophical, provocative etc. just as any other creative form of expression. And those choices don’t occur in a vacuum. Regardless of what you may think the show’s intent is, it exists in the context of our culture, and our culture today is still relatively glutted with unequal power and privilege dynamics. So inevitably, what happens on the show, esp. with a show as popular as South Park, will have an effect on various groups of people depending on the topic is chooses to tackle.

This blog, as I understand it, does not advocate for censorship of the show, but it strives to recognize the different ways in which different forms of oppression may be perpetuated (intentionally or not) by the show. Those who want a space to voice those concerns, experiences without being inundated with anons telling them to ‘get over it it’s just satire’ are welcome to come here and we’ll do our best to listen to and amplify those voices. The ‘wanting to see less of that’ you speak of is more so our desire to see the sensitive topics handled with some semblance of understanding. For example- Raising the Bar would have been a lot more meaningful if Matt and Trey had demonstrated some knowledge of what actually goes into obtaining a motorized scooter.

What I feel like people in this fandom have trouble understanding is that people are going to experience this show differently than others. Someone who is part of a marginalized community will experience this show differently than someone who is not. Subsequently, those opinions aren’t as popular and people may need a space to talk/vent about it. It doesn’t mean we don’t like the show (hell, I’ve watched this show for years) or that we don’t think it hasn’t succeeded. We probably wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t. It’s more a matter of wanting to hold the show accountable and listening to and empathizing with perspectives that are less visible. 

-Mod Tweek

I agree! I also think that the show is less about dark and offensive humor and more about wanting to appeal to everyone of all different types of sense of humor, including bigots, thus the more questionable episodes (in my opinion.)

The concept of humor is a grey area in itself already but making light of issues that oppressed people face so very obviously does not appeal to those people who are oppressed, which lessens the credibility of that sort of humor. Conversely if it pokes fun of people who are in positions of power and privilege, their offense has much less loss in the long run, considering that, well, they’re in a position of privilege, they have a lot less to lose in that area that hurt feelings rather than making fun of a serious issue is not an objective big deal.

I personally like the show because of its attempts at social political humor, though oftentimes it does not fail to disappoint, which at this rate isn’t much of a surprise either. I don’t think we necessarily want to censor the show, like Mod Tweek said, but just that we want a public and open space to discuss what we feel like works for the show, and what doesn’t. We’re not comedy professionals, and we all come from different backgrounds. It’s more important that we as an audience are not censored, instead, from our complains and our own criticisms of the show. 

Matt and Trey write things, and then make fun of people if they get offended at it, and they (like a lot of people who like to flame this blog) seem to think that they are the paragons of comedy and social justice in this case. We, on the other hand, want to hear the voices of those who do enjoy the show but at the same time do find offense in certain episodes and want to feel validated in their feelings. We are obviously all fans of the show in one way or another, but rather than assuming that fans have to like every episode this show produces, we want to encourage the audience and fans to allow themselves to think critically of what they might enjoy about South Park, and what they don’t.

- Mod Clyde

[squid-in-a-party-hat]

Thinking Critically About South Park... Again... Again...

See My Last Post For My Thoughts On Episode 2

—

I honestly thought I wouldn’t have much to say about this episode, but right from the opening scene, I knew they had some stuff that was worth analyzing. 

So, from the jump, I think the Jimmy Kimmel portion of the episode was attempting to state that people find a joke funny, until it’s about them. I can’t necessarily disagree with that, because I’ve seen it first hand. I’ve seen people who are very progressive about a certain thing, have negative reactions to other things. Again, referring to my previous post,  Caitlyn Jenner has a stance that is sort of opposed to gay marriage. She did state that she doesn’t want to stand in the way of people’s happiness, so she considers herself a supporter of gay marriage, yet the fact that she felt the need to say that she more believes in the concept of “Traditional Marriage”, left us all with a bad taste in our mouth. Ignoring that example leaves us with prevalent examples of different activists having been bigoted towards other marginalized groups of people. There’s a George Carlin quote that I always think of when I see people like this. His quote mainly has to do with environmentalists who he believes are not out to help the planet as much as they are to help themselves.

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.”

I think the last sentence hits the nail on the head when concerning activists who only desire to help when they can directly benefit from it, and I’ve seen a lot of those types of people. I mean, even on this site we come across Transphobic Feminists, Racist LGBT+ Activists, and the like. 

Secondly, the owner of City Wok’s opening speech about feeling like a relic from the past makes me think that the speech wasn’t coming from the character as much as it was coming directly from Matt and Trey. South Park, in previous years, was seen as being a generally progressive show. I think now that some people take issue with some of their messages causes them to feel like their whole show is outdated. I mean, I don’t think they are ever gonna stop making it by their own accord. Since they have a show that lasted this long, they feel pretty comfortable in their financial situation, so it’s very doubtful that they are gonna take a long break to rethink their approach to the show. They are in a situation where they have created a show which will more than likely always hold the audience’s attention. I really wish they would though, because I firmly believe their methodology needs a bit of updating. 

Thirdly, the episode as a whole is really pointing out how gentrification doesn’t always help those that they pretend it’s helping. Like, I’ve worked on gentrification projects. Some of them have been helping rebuild people’s homes so they and their children have a cleaner, safer place to live, and then there have been some I’ve worked on where the homes were unowned, and we were really just helping the city’s economy (so mainly helping the middle to upper class citizens, while hurting lower class citizens). This episode was a pretty good example of the latter. I really feel the need to return to a portion of that George Carlin quote. 

“You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. “

I feel like the quote really hits the topic of today’s episode on the head. People acting selfishly to ensure their own self-preservation while hurting others. An extreme example of this are those real life horror stories of Police picking up Homeless People and moving them out of the area that they are familiar with (it’s essentially kidnapping). At the end of the day, it’s really a matter of compassion. Some people really just don’t feel any. They care mainly for their own well-being, rather than even remotely trying to help someone else. 

I don’t know. That’s just my thoughts. I feel like I might be leaving something out, but I don’t know. 

[safepark]

can i get a yay/nay on reclaiming PC principal and making him the blog icon ?

[squid-in-a-party-hat]

Thinking Critically About South Park... Again

See My Last Post For My Thoughts On The Last Episode

— 

Okay, I’m not gonna touch on the main plot, simply because they kinda captured what’s wrong with Trump and his type of politics in general. I’m gonna focus on how South Park has been depicting Transgender individuals.

Okay, I’d be the first person to admit that Caitlyn Jenner is not a perfect person. Her negative stance on gay individuals has been highlighted pretty well on this website, and the fact that she may not got prosecuted for manslaughter (probably because she’s famous) has been highlighted in the media. So, I’m all on board for a thoughtful critique of how some people try to make her out to be infallible.

What I cannot approve of is South Park’s track record for making Transgendered people looking more like people in drag or making them look straight up bizarre looking.

Past cases of this include: 

And Most Recently

(I know Randy doesn’t technically count as transgendered but Randy was used pretty extensively as a comparison to the kid’s trans arc, so I’d say he fits the billing.)

The first two, I am willing to be lenient on. It wasn’t like Mr. Garrison was every an attractive individual, and the same pretty much goes for Randy. However, Caitlyn’s appearance seems to be altered simply to make her look unattractive and extremely unintelligent. I may have been able to let this go if Caitlyn had appeared as a character back on the show when the world knew her as Bruce and maintained a similar appearance, but the fact of the matter is, she didn’t. The Kardashians had appeared but never Jenner. You could argue that this simply South Park’s style of depicting Celebrities, but the fact of the matter is, they only do this to celebrities that they won’t to appear as unintelligent and attempt to devalue everything that the celebrity has to say, case in point. 

In fact, the way that South Park has been depicting Transgendered individuals is the same way that they used to depict gay individuals. To be more specific, DMaB (Designated Male At Birth) characters whose entire characterization is based off of stereotypes, and usually only being utilized for humor. Examples of this being used for gay characters include Mr. Slave, Big Gay Al, Mr. Garrison, and the list goes on. I’d say this only really stopped around the episode, “Cartman Sucks”, which features a character named Bradley who is gay that befriends Butters. 

Now, on the flip side, I would like to jump to the closest thing to a positive trans gender character in the series. 

Now, when I first saw Wendy appear as Wendyl, I was really hoping that this would have been a permanent change to her character, rather than her just trying to aggravate Cartman. Honestly, Wendy is one of my favorite characters in the entirety of the show, so when I saw them utilizing her as a form of positive representation for Trans people, I honestly thought it was pretty cool.

Unfortunately, after the arc was over, they switched Wendyl back to Wendy and Stan questioning his gender was never really explored outside of a few throwaway lines. 

Although, this did get me start thinking. Every time South Park has depicted a transwoman, including the time Cartman put a bow on his head, it’s always made to look like the equivalent of a male in drag. Yet, the one time they do depict some semblance of a Trans Male, it seems to be respectable. Like, she didn’t rub charcoal on her face to fake a beard or anything, and there’s nothing truly indicative that Wendy was born a girl. Honestly, if you removed the beret and told me it was a different character entirely, I would believe you. 

I think this is less of just Transphobia in general, and more specifically Transmisogyny. Again, i’m not trying to call Matt or Trey transphobic, as this is pure speculation, but it honestly seems like at least a couple people on the creative team may be uncomfortable with the idea of trans women. Everything about the way they design their Transwoman Characters is indicative of them being disgusted with them in some regard. 

I don’t know. Again, this is an arc of episodes so I really should be reserving judgement to the end, but I really would enjoy to have some intelligent conversation about this.

Again, if you didn’t read the last post, I am actually a fan of South Park, but I’m just finding some of the creative choices their going with right now as… questionable at the least. Just like this episode was trying to bring up, no one is infallible, even someone who you may view as inspiration. As far as I am concerned, Matt & Trey are not infallible either. 

[safepark]

damn, for real? everyone in the tag is saying it was clearly a stab at ‘teh evul sjws!1!!’ and that kyle was like. blatantly transmisogynist.

[safepark]

so. how bad was it.

[southparkdigital]

The boys express their utmost respect for Caitlyn Jenner in this Wednesday’s all-new episode “Stunning and Brave”.

[safepark]

one breather. i wanted one breather. like just, to open a season without stress, you know?

[comedycentral]

Look out. Just three days away. #SouthPark

[safepark]

Me: *Takes favorite characters away from writers.*

Me: You can have them back when you learn how to treat them better.

[safepark]

I also want to let the other anon who sent in a question towards the end of the season that your question is currently being worked on by another mod! Just wanted to let you know that we received it, and that it isn't being ignored =)

- mod Tweek

[safepark]

Thank you for making this blog. I have been a huge fan of south park for awhile. One issue I have as a fan is this: it upsets me to NO END that people think that we actually ship 8-10year olds. Most of the fan art and fiction casts them as teens or in college (I usually make them exactly 18, lol.)

Hey, anon! And no problem, it’s been great to be a part of this blog; mod Stan really had a good idea in coming up with  it =)

This fandom really can get a bit complicated with its shipping, can’t it? I totally understand your sentiment because the vast majority of the fandom is pretty clear in stating that the kids are aged up. However, there is content out there that is a bit ambiguous (possibly a deliberate choice) that complicates it for more casual fans and it’s something that the fandom will consistently have to acknowledge and address. It’s inevitable and likely a bit tiring for those who have been contributing art, graphics and fics for a long time, but on the positive side of things: working with aged up characters gives us a lot of creative freedom, and a lot more room that other fandoms to construct interesting headcanons and futures for out favorite characters!

-mod Tweek

[safepark]

Thank you so much for making this! The fandom has been angering me so much lately.

Hi, anon! I’m glad to hear you’ve been enjoying the blog, it’s our pleasure. We’re open to starting tough dialogues here, so if you feel the need to use this blog as an outlet to voice any concerns regarding fandom or would like a particular discussion addressed, let us know!

Best,

-mod Tweek =)

[mintyparade-deactivated20160616]

super cute girlfriends club (transparent!!)

(tag this as genderbending or crossdressing and i will destroy u)

[tweektweakthafreak-deactivated2]

PEWDIEPIE ON FUCKING SOUTH PARK

[safepark]

"this season could not get any worse" i said a week ago