Well Zig Forums?

Well Zig Forums?

Attached: 120244819_10221914133816504_1041179601224083239_n.jpg (720x895, 55.84K)

In a society where the quality of life for the working class is slipping more and more, it's less easy to sell the act of being crass as innocent tomfoolery. The mid 20th century saw an era of social revolution where the puritanical ruling class was something to rebel against. Pushing the envelope was daring because you could actually get in trouble and had to be clever about how you went about it. But by the mid 90's, conservative clout in entertainment was rapidly diminishing, and by the 2000's networks started to figure out that rebellion sold better than "family values". Where once Family Guy was a crass, less marketable Simpsons, now it could be the naughtier alternative. South Park went from sparking outrage to being seen as a bastion of political currency, and the audience high on cynicism after 9/11 was more than ready to eat it up. But by the late 2000's people were starting to wise up, that not every comedian was making rude comedy with a purpose, some were just making it to get away with shitty behavior. This combined with rapid financial inequality and a feeling of disappointment that a new president wasn't the quick fix they hoped, lead to more and more people seeing jokes about the marginalized and the wounded as exploitative and punching down. There's a reason shows like Adventure Time, Bobs Burgers, and (Horse Program) became a hit, because their tone was less confrontational and cruel. People liked the earnestness of it. Problem is now the pendulum seems to have swung too far the other way where now nothing can be too adult or too rough edged. Greater sensitivity has mutated into hyper sensitivity over simple subjects of sex and culture, and the once daring and subversive artists of old are now having the younger generations condemn them for all their hard work breaking barriers.

>Problem is now the pendulum seems to have swung too far the other way where now nothing can be too adult or too rough edged.
The high amount of edgy capeshit now or someone like Ennis getting any of his work adapted disproves that. The problem is finding a good balance between the edge and cuteness.

In middle school we use to bully kids who watched family guy and south park because they had shit taste in media. Idk about the rest of gen z but I find greater humour in the absurd opposed to the proactive.

>In middle school we use to bully kids who watched family guy and south park
???
I'm genuinely surprised,people were crazy about South Park in my middle school

>If people laugh when Cartman calls people 'jew', why do my nephews at Thanksgiving get offended when I do it?

I laugh when Jerry hits Tom in the head with a sledgehammer. Doesn't mean I want somebody to do it to me in real life.

Kids contradict what cartoons tell them when they're childen. McFarlane and Trey and Matt were raised by Superfriends and Batman 66.

What I mean is, those ten year olds will turn into fucking homophobic savages. And it will be good.

Turns out that type of offensive trash doesn't actually RAISE any one and instead prepares a generation only for mindless group-think and strategically advantageous hypocrisy.

People aren't raised by television you inbred retard. They're raised by humans who can pass on ideals both good and bad. Good fucking god, I hate cartoon fags.

>mindless group-think

>people think differently to me
>I can't understand why pople would do this
>they must not be thinking at all
>I'm the only one who's REALLY thinking, you sheeple, just like my hero Rick Sanchez

Weird the big things at my middle school were Future Funk, Weed, and Classic Spongebob (pre movie). Then again, my school was apparently the go to dumping ground for autistic kids since it had the most certified teachers. Most (if not all) the tards liked crass adult animation, which made anyone else who liked it look cringe.

>Any Spongebob
Yeah you faggots aren't allowed to bully anyone, classic or otherwise.

we did though? You think your taste dictates what happened user? Maybe you should go watch your liberal cut out shows and whine about global events that never effect you.

They were also raised by your mom's chest hair.

Not everyone watched the shows user and I dunno, I blame virtue signaling on social media.

Shut up, jew.

Except they didn't get offended by everything. IT's only people who spend all their time on TWITTER and are exasperated by everyone else, to the point that they get more sensitive than they need to be and offended more than they need to be, and people who spend too much time on this site getting offended at them getting offended.

Like JK Rowling being an anti-trans. That wa a genuinely offensive thing, and while you can't use public outrage as a great barometer of how offensive something is, it got enough attention that some transgender newspaper commenters had something to say on it, most of them Harry Potter fans.

But those people, who are only on twitter to keep an eye on things and spend most of their time actually working, expressed their offendedness like actual fucking adults. MAybe some over-egged it a bit, but JK was offensive, and they were right to say something, and they were calm and kind about it.

It's only Twitter losers going >I'm offended GO DIE OF CANCER.

You're only paying attention to the worst of it, and people only do, so it seems worse than it actually is.

This is the thing, like I keep saying: the nasty element of the social justice lobby, e.g. anarchist cells in BLM protests, are offended by a lot of shit and go all fire and brimstone, because they were raised as religious fundies by their parents, with the same authoritarian mindset that excuses their own bullying.

Now they've gone over to the liberal side, but haven't got rid of their mentality. They still think the same way, just with a more liberal political stance. Kind of, ironically, like Cartman did a couple of seasons back. He was still a controlling, toxic little freak towards his girlfriend.

It's only a minority of people on Twitter, and most of them are probably only doing it to troll. This is why fans are the best critics - they have the nuance and are unlikely to be getting involved as an excuse to send a woman death threats and slag off fans.

>Like JK Rowling being an anti-trans.

But she's not. She's anti-men being allowed to us women's spaces, like toilets, sports teams, refuges, gynecology. Plenty of actual trans people are against that, vocally.

It's only men who suffer from autogynephilia and kids who've misjudged how much men who suffer from autogynephilia like to edge that are for it. The truth is if you let people self-identify as whatever the hell they want with absolute legal impunity there will be those who, despite being few in number, will be able to cause incredible amounts of harm and will do so simply out of a sense of entitlement.

>but they wouldn't

It's 2020. Look around you. They would. In any case it's the job of legislators to look at how things might change, not at how the proponents of change believe it would turn out under ideal circumstances.

Right now, even in places in the world that it would very much surprise you to learn there's any trans people at all, there are trans people who are allowed to use opposite-sex facilities, given care and compassion and found somewhere appropriate to stay on a case-by-case basis when they need to access a refuge. That doesn't need legislative change: it might get it, and it might not make much difference if the laws are well written and enforcement is good, but it's not anti-trans to say these people are doing OK. Neither is it anti-trans to say that a dude who participates in a women's contact sport is going to hurt a lot of women, intentionally, any more than it's anti-male to say that Lance Armstrong is a one-nutted drug-chugging cheating machine. It's what people in sports do sometimes, especially when there's money or reputation to be made from playing.

But hey, if you want to go by what retards on twitter and reddit think instead of actually looking at the facts, that's up to you. Just do us all a courtesy and don't be so entry-level that you confuse sex with gender, because that's definitely anti-everything.

I think people should be more offended

>People aren't raised by television you inbred retard.
They are now.

>quality of life for the working class is slipping
Literally where?

TV shows don't raise generations

Housing and food are becoming more expensive for one thing.

Why the fuck is a post this good on Zig Forums of all places?

Wrong, now people are raised by computers, cellphones and tablets

Thank fuck I was raised by a pail of water.

Shows like south park actually make people more easily offended in the long-run because when TV shows exit short-term memory and enter long-term memory, people think the events in the show happened to themselves.

>I was the one liftin' him up. But he was the one raisn' me.

Attached: Teary.png (1200x1200, 1.44M)

>food
Literally dollars more while luxury items worth hundreds to thousands are goggbled up in droves
>housing
Immigration to fuel neolibs need for non stop growth. Cut immigration in line with moving from multinational assembly line to more nationalistic economy.

The price of some foods will go up a little and electronics will jump up in price but housing will be way better and so will the lowest wages, all without hyperinflation of the currency.

I can tell you didn't actually read what JK Rowling said and just read news articles that told you what to think. Seriously go read what she actually said. I don't see how anyone sane can find it offensive or mean spirited.

>Like JK Rowling being an anti-trans
>Not propagating mental illness nor advocating for acceptance as treatment for a real mental illness
Disregard the rest, already lost the plot

>Literally dollars
It adds up fast when everything is dollars more