![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(FUCKING GOD IT WAS FUCKING HOT TODAY! WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK?)
Okay, now that I got that out of my system.
I've been watching South Park on Hulu lately. What continues to strike me is that 1.) after a decade of watching them they continue to make me laugh and sometimes even make me upset and 2.) I really can't stand Matt and Trey's politics sometimes.
Actually, you guys have all seen this, right? In the OH JOHN RINGO NO, I think this genius part of the article gets lost, so I want to repost it here.
The various types of ideological fiction also differ in how they treat the loyal opposition -- by which I mean, the people who disagree but are nominally on the same team. In conservative ideological fiction, the loyal opposition is steamrolled; they're there, but are defeated or ignored by Our Heroes, who are of course Faithful and Right (pretty much any Tom Clancy novel; 24). In liberal ideological fiction, the loyal opposition is defeated and becomes the subject of public opprobium, while Our Heroes are admired for being Faithful and Right (as in TRANSMETROPOLITAN, say, or my beloved BABYLON 5, or to a lesser degree in SERENITY, or half of John Grisham's novels, or... incidentally, could I just request that if any of my liberal friends decide to write a political intrigue, would you please not foist yet another goddamned haircut of Watergate or Murrow vs. McCarthy on the world? BECAUSE I HAVE FUCKING SEEN IT). In Libertarian ideological fiction, there generally *is* no loyal opposition; Our Heroes are Faithful and Right and those who disagree with them are either misinformed (and over the course of the novel are educated to become Faithful and Right) or outright evil. (Also, Libertarian authors are, for the most part, constitutionally incapable of lecturing an audience on merely one political question; they want to convince you on all of them, and all at once.)
I couldn't help but nod repeatedly when watching their take on the WGA episode.
Not that I think their political views SHOULDN'T affect their show. And often they're funny enough that I don't care. (A few times I even agree.)
Although it does sometimes annoy me when they sneer at the "stupidity of Hollywood liberals" when they imply that THEY actually have all the right answers about everything. And if not them, their friends ... you know, the magicians.
Sheesh.
Okay, now that I got that out of my system.
I've been watching South Park on Hulu lately. What continues to strike me is that 1.) after a decade of watching them they continue to make me laugh and sometimes even make me upset and 2.) I really can't stand Matt and Trey's politics sometimes.
Actually, you guys have all seen this, right? In the OH JOHN RINGO NO, I think this genius part of the article gets lost, so I want to repost it here.
The various types of ideological fiction also differ in how they treat the loyal opposition -- by which I mean, the people who disagree but are nominally on the same team. In conservative ideological fiction, the loyal opposition is steamrolled; they're there, but are defeated or ignored by Our Heroes, who are of course Faithful and Right (pretty much any Tom Clancy novel; 24). In liberal ideological fiction, the loyal opposition is defeated and becomes the subject of public opprobium, while Our Heroes are admired for being Faithful and Right (as in TRANSMETROPOLITAN, say, or my beloved BABYLON 5, or to a lesser degree in SERENITY, or half of John Grisham's novels, or... incidentally, could I just request that if any of my liberal friends decide to write a political intrigue, would you please not foist yet another goddamned haircut of Watergate or Murrow vs. McCarthy on the world? BECAUSE I HAVE FUCKING SEEN IT). In Libertarian ideological fiction, there generally *is* no loyal opposition; Our Heroes are Faithful and Right and those who disagree with them are either misinformed (and over the course of the novel are educated to become Faithful and Right) or outright evil. (Also, Libertarian authors are, for the most part, constitutionally incapable of lecturing an audience on merely one political question; they want to convince you on all of them, and all at once.)
I couldn't help but nod repeatedly when watching their take on the WGA episode.
Not that I think their political views SHOULDN'T affect their show. And often they're funny enough that I don't care. (A few times I even agree.)
Although it does sometimes annoy me when they sneer at the "stupidity of Hollywood liberals" when they imply that THEY actually have all the right answers about everything. And if not them, their friends ... you know, the magicians.
Sheesh.