Political Crossfire Forums

Richard Owl Mirror · Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9002

'South Park' mocks Steve Irwin
Quote: The cartoon series "South Park" has never been shy of courting controversy, but its latest episode has caused outrage by featuring the recently deceased Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin.

Swearing and random death and destruction are staples of the cartoon, which has been broadcast since 1997. Irwin, killed by a stingray's barb while snorkeling the Great Barrier Reef in September is the latest celebrity to be lampooned by the show.

The episode, aired in the U.S. earlier this week, shows Satan preparing to host a Halloween fancy dress party. Other guests include Princess Diana, Hitler and rapper Notorious B.I.G. Critics have been appalled by the Irwin character's depiction in a bloodstained shirt and with a stingray still attached to his chest.

John Beyer of UK TV watchdog Mediawatch said: "This is such bad taste and the makers of 'South Park' should review their decision to show it. Steve's family are still grieving.

"To lampoon somebody's death like that is unacceptable and so soon after the event is grossly insensitive.''

"South Park" maker Comedy Central defended the episode.
A spokesperson for the company said: "It has offended people in the past and probably will again. Regular watchers would not be shocked."

~snip~

Are you a "Regular watcher" ?
Were/are you offended by this latest grossly insensitive depiction ?
I AM :1evil:

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

Was I offended? No.

Marzelvane · Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 93

im a regular watcher...and no i was not offended. it is southpark, this is what they do.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

I hate southpark because I can't stand the voices and the stupidity of the entire show. The animation s*cks as well, and the characters are woefully ignorant.

That said, I'm not offended- like Marzelvane said..that's what they do. Are you offended by racial jokes on SNL? Apparently someone is, because if you watch the HILARIOUS episodes from the 70's and 80's, and compare them to what's on now..you can see a remarkable difference!

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8288 Location: Petah Tikva

Nope.

micfranklin · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject:

I was a little offput by that, but not offended. Come to think of it, I'm never offended by South Park. Some people need to get a life....

Zombie3785 · Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 450 Location: St. Louis, MO

Ahhaaha he has a stingray hanging from his chest. I love South Park.

puffin · Joined: 24 Jun 2006 Posts: 985

Irwin got just what he deserved times two. He made a fortune basically tormenting wild animals into finally having to use their self defense instincts. Well a ray who the cameraman and Irwin got too close and the ray reacted. Cry me a river!
I grew up on a ranch and if I had ever been caught tormenting ANY animal the way Irwin did I would have had my as* kicked so hard I would not be able to sit down for a week.
Slice and dice it anyway you chose Irwin was 'interacting' with wild animals in inappropriate ways and that's how his was killed.
Oh yeah, I have discussed this with my cousin, originally from Canada who has lived in Astralia for about forty years. He suggests that Australians have a somewhat 'different' attitude towards wild animals.

Riot · Joined: 08 Jun 2006 Posts: 11

puffin wrote: Irwin got just what he deserved times two. He made a fortune basically tormenting wild animals into finally having to use their self defense instincts. Well a ray who the cameraman and Irwin got too close and the ray reacted. Cry me a river!
I grew up on a ranch and if I had ever been caught tormenting ANY animal the way Irwin did I would have had my as* kicked so hard I would not be able to sit down for a week.
Slice and dice it anyway you chose Irwin was 'interacting' with wild animals in inappropriate ways and that's how his was killed.
Oh yeah, I have discussed this with my cousin, originally from Canada who has lived in Astralia for about forty years. He suggests that Australians have a somewhat 'different' attitude towards wild animals.

tormenting?
I wouldnt quite say tormenting... Steve has taught us many new things about animals by showing us up close and without him our knowledge of animal characteristics would be at a minimal. Its funny how in your perspective you think that he's "tormenting" animals when you grew up on a ranch and should know that it actually takes alot to torment an animal. Steve was always gentle with animals and knew the limits when it comes to being cautious handling them.

Anyways, the South Park episode did not offend me at all, but I think they could have waited a little longer before showing the episode, due to the fact that the incident was fairly recent and his family is still recovering.

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

Yeah, it didn't find it offensive, mabey a little too soon, but meh, it's Southpark, they bring Comedy Central more money than any other show (except mabey the Daily Show or the Colbert Report) so they can pretty much do whatever they want. Do I have to quote Voltaire on this one?

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

I'm offended by the fact that the creators of a poorly written and terribly animated cartoon are probably sitting on seven figure bank accounts; but as for the material concerning Steve Irwin, no, I'm not offended. I do pity the writers however, that they can't find anything better to lampoon.

micfranklin · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject:

I find it amazing how many people are overly sensitive when they get offended by something on South Park.

Anyway, don't start the "Irwin got what he deserved" argument: that's begging for a beatdown :twisted:

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject:

South Park appears to be trying to 'offend' for a purpose; that purpose (as near as I can tell) being to mock long-standing prejudices, question the reverence and deference with which certain ideas and celebrities are treated, and rebel against extreme political correctness.

The alleged poor quality of the animation and voice work is likewise on purpose - it's part of what made the show stand out originally - again, likely a rebellion against the trend toward slicker and slicker animated production at the expense of good writing.

My partner and I are regular watchers. It offers us a safe way to have our buttons pushed and thereby somewhat get over ourselves.

The show for some is an acquired taste. I didn't get what the fuss was about either at first.

Not every episode is a winner. In fact, lately they've been getting kinda stale, falling back on standard jokes like Cartman's rabid anti-Semitism. Hardly unexpected given the shows age, though.

As for the Steve Irwin bit, it did seem gratuitous to us, even for South Park, but I wouldn' say we were offended, just taken off-guard. As for the timing, they've never shown much deference in that respect; part of the show's draw is it's ability to stay current with real world events.

Marzelvane · Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 93

F'losrix wrote: South Park appears to be trying to 'offend' for a purpose; that purpose (as near as I can tell) being to mock long-standing prejudices, question the reverence and deference with which certain ideas and celebrities are treated, and rebel against extreme political correctness.

The alleged poor quality of the animation and voice work is likewise on purpose - it's part of what made the show stand out originally - again, likely a rebellion against the trend toward slicker and slicker animated production at the expense of good writing.

yeah, what he said. i didnt think i could agree with a homo.

ontheyslay · Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 274 Location: Michigan

I'm a regular watcher, and when I saw it I thought, wow, maybe that wasn't the best idea. But I wasn't surprised by it. It doesn't really bother me though, it's a cartoon.

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2665

it was all done on purpose, the no one is safe attitude of south park is what gives it its audience

was i offended no i would have been more offended if they didnt lampoon him at some point

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 9491

Southpark was funny the first few years... now they're simply pulling out the shock value to stay relevant. I wouldn't be offended had I seen it, but I ignore South Park mostly.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:

Marzelvane wrote: yeah, what he said. i didnt think i could agree with a homo.
I can be very agreeable. Even more so with hets who refrain from calling me a 'homo'. For the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intend that to be offensive. After all, what's the difference between 'homosexual' versus 'homo'? One is just a short version of the other, right?

Wrong. Where I come from, 'homo' is used as an only slightly less inflammatory pejorative than 'f**'. It isn't the word itself, but the way it's spat at us that pisses us off.

:cue announcers voice:

This educational opportunity has been brought to you by your local same-sex oriented, self-appointed slanguage education & enforcement officer. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

(in other words, no need to derail the thread by debating the above)

Superfly · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 4603 Location: Tornado Alley

Marzelvane wrote: F'losrix wrote: South Park appears to be trying to 'offend' for a purpose; that purpose (as near as I can tell) being to mock long-standing prejudices, question the reverence and deference with which certain ideas and celebrities are treated, and rebel against extreme political correctness.

The alleged poor quality of the animation and voice work is likewise on purpose - it's part of what made the show stand out originally - again, likely a rebellion against the trend toward slicker and slicker animated production at the expense of good writing.

yeah, what he said. i didnt think i could agree with a homo.

:roll:

Marzelvane · Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 93

F'losrix wrote: Marzelvane wrote: yeah, what he said. i didnt think i could agree with a homo.
I can be very agreeable. Even more so with hets who refrain from calling me a 'homo'. For the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intend that to be offensive. After all, what's the difference between 'homosexual' versus 'homo'? One is just a short version of the other, right?

Wrong. Where I come from, 'homo' is used as an only slightly less inflammatory pejorative than 'f**'. It isn't the word itself, but the way it's spat at us that pisses us off.

it was meant to be offensive...but in a South Park type of way, so its cool, right?