Race and Sexual Orientation in new South Park Video Game

[Paratus]

So in the new game South Park: The Fractured But Wholes, in addition to being able to select cisgender or transgender during character creation the game difficulty slider changes your characters skin tone as shown below:

With very difficult being for dark skinned characters.

"Don't worry, this doesn't affect combat," character Eric Cartman says as you operate the slider. "Just every other aspect of your whole life."
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/coming-south-park-game-is-harder-for-black-characters/

That is some biting commentary. I think it's a an ingenuous way to bring light to racism.

I also expect some serious butt hurt from certain folks.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's the sort of amusement one would expect from South Park. Big yawn over it being a story.

 

[JSt0rm]

Lol. Awesome.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Hello it's South Park

The Cartman becomes trans to be able to use the girls room is an epic episode

 

[Starbuck1975]

Parker and Stone are incredibly brilliant and biting when it comes to offering social commentary, especially given how current, balanced and timely they tend to be.

Stick of Truth was better than it had any right to be. Can't wait for this one to come out.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol I like it.

 

[local]

I laughed, can't wait.

 

[werepossum]

Hello it's South Park

The Cartman becomes trans to be able to use the girls room is an epic episode

Agreed. But where some see humor, others see biting social commentary. We call these people humorless dicks.

 

[Paratus]

Agreed. But where some see humor, others see biting social commentary. We call these people humorless dicks.

Umm have you ever seen South Park?

They use biting social commentary for humorous purposes.

 

[werepossum]

Umm have you ever seen South Park?

They use biting social commentary for humorous purposes.

Agreed.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Remember that this is the makers of South Park, they could very well be trolling the internet. Also, I hope that it is real because this is brilliant political satire. If it is I'll probably have to play the game several times on different settings to see how it changes.

 

[HomerJS]

Shouldn't orange skin be rated very easy

 

[Commodus]

Remember that this is the makers of South Park, they could very well be trolling the internet. Also, I hope that it is real because this is brilliant political satire. If it is I'll probably have to play the game several times on different settings to see how it changes.

Mind you, South Park has a knack for both trolling and making significant commentary at the same time.

 

[nakedfrog]

Shouldn't orange skin be rated very easy

Comes with a perk where you also start the game with a bunch of money.

 

[interchange]

Humor is a good defense mechanism. Much better than most of the crap we see when the idea of race differences enters our minds.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

South Park doing what it does best: Pointing out the obvious in a way which manages to offend everyone who wants to be offended.

 

[interchange]

South Park doing what it does best: Pointing out the obvious in a way which manages to offend everyone who wants to be offended.

There is a character type that is horribly sexist in origin, name, and application called histrionic but nonetheless is worthy of looking at here.

People who have a tendency for overly dramatic behavior and display of feelings or reactivity are often the most genuine. But they anticipate that their genuine feelings would be rejected or invalidated. So instead of sequestering the feeling or expressing it in ways that are perceived as more genuine, they handle the sting of that anticipated rejection differently. They dramatize the expression of their feelings. When someone rejects it, then the histrionic person can feel more comfortable that others were rejecting their behavior and not their feelings themselves.

Paying attention to the overreactions of histrionic people gives you a lot of insight into the internal reactions of non-histrionic people who choose instead not to act at all out of fear of rejection.

But, hey, here I am trying to discuss politics by bringing up complex and largely antiquated psychology to a bunch of dudes on a Tech forum. Everyone has their problems. I just hope some of you will look past em to see something that's of interest at least to me.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There is a character type that is horribly sexist in origin, name, and application called histrionic but nonetheless is worthy of looking at here.

People who have a tendency for overly dramatic behavior and display of feelings or reactivity are often the most genuine. But they anticipate that their genuine feelings would be rejected or invalidated. So instead of sequestering the feeling or expressing it in ways that are perceived as more genuine, they handle the sting of that anticipated rejection differently. They dramatize the expression of their feelings. When someone rejects it, then the histrionic person can feel more comfortable that others were rejecting their behavior and not their feelings themselves.

Paying attention to the overreactions of histrionic people gives you a lot of insight into the internal reactions of non-histrionic people who choose instead not to act at all out of fear of rejection.

But, hey, here I am trying to discuss politics by bringing up complex and largely antiquated psychology to a bunch of dudes on a Tech forum. Everyone has their problems. I just hope some of you will look past em to see something that's of interest at least to me.

Totally makes sense, in the same logic that for every person who writes a negative review, there's 10x as many that had the same problem and didn't bother to write about it. People as you described above, I'm sure, temper their reaction anticipating the rejection, and thus it has as much 'hysterics' (pardon the usage) in it as you might see upon their view actually being rejected. The same notion can be carried over to plenty of other subjects, Vegans being one that jumps out at my (Sister IL is a vegan, and ensures we know it).

Now having said that, I imagine there's a spectrum of feelings on the matter, from those who truly act out their preconceived rejections in their delivery, all the way down to people who feel a certain way but DGIF what others think regarding it. I fall in the latter category for most things, but I imagine I'm a fair nutter in a few realms of interest. I acknowledge that fact however and I have no issue with someone pointing it out, as I value objectivity and I'd prefer to know if I'm running off the rails in relation to others. IMHO, we should all value how we appear to others, not only a) to not unnecessarily offend others, but b) so that we can be offended without a shitstorm (inward or outward) ensuing. Trey Parker/Matt Stone definitely know how to get their fingernails under the skin in a witty manner, and I think this is very much poking at an issue that a lot of people have a lot of preconceived notions and emotions about, and I congratulate them doing so.

 

[Ajay]

That's the sort of amusement one would expect from South Park. Big yawn over it being a story.

+1

 

[interchange]

Now having said that, I imagine there's a spectrum of feelings on the matter, from those who truly act out their preconceived rejections in their delivery, all the way down to people who feel a certain way but DGIF what others think regarding it. I fall in the latter category for most things, but I imagine I'm a fair nutter in a few realms of interest. I acknowledge that fact however and I have no issue with someone pointing it out, as I value objectivity and I'd prefer to know if I'm running off the rails in relation to others. IMHO, we should all value how we appear to others, not only a) to not unnecessarily offend others, but b) so that we can be offended without a shitstorm (inward or outward) ensuing. Trey Parker/Matt Stone definitely know how to get their fingernails under the skin in a witty manner, and I think this is very much poking at an issue that a lot of people have a lot of preconceived notions and emotions about, and I congratulate them doing so.

I definitely don't think that you fall in the DGAF category. After all, you're bothering to have this conversation with me about it.

But this is the basic problem. It's really hard these days to just express what you think and feel honestly and not have to defend yourself against a shit-storm coming back at you. That's a problem. If someone isn't actually doing something dangerous but otherwise expressing beliefs which are unsavory, why not engage them honestly? Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, nor does it mean you should be restricted in telling them that you disagree. But it shouldn't be wrong to have a basic respect for someone even if you think ill of their ideas. I don't think we fail to respect others because we really think it's wrong; I think we fail to do so because we ourselves feel vulnerable.

And, by the way, I have a lot of respect for you following along in this conversation.

And I also congratulate Trey Parker and Matt Stone for pushing this envelope. I just wish they didn't have to.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I definitely don't think that you fall in the DGAF category. After all, you're bothering to have this conversation with me about it.

But this is the basic problem. It's really hard these days to just express what you think and feel honestly and not have to defend yourself against a shit-storm coming back at you. That's a problem. If someone isn't actually doing something dangerous but otherwise expressing beliefs which are unsavory, why not engage them honestly? Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, nor does it mean you should be restricted in telling them that you disagree. But it shouldn't be wrong to have a basic respect for someone even if you think ill of their ideas. I don't think we fail to respect others because we really think it's wrong; I think we fail to do so because we ourselves feel vulnerable.

And, by the way, I have a lot of respect for you following along in this conversation.

And I also congratulate Trey Parker and Matt Stone for pushing this envelope. I just wish they didn't have to.

That is the problem, everyone has a platform now, from the intelligent/caring/GAF people, to the blithering idiots who'd prefer to just verbally vomit over anyone around them because they have no notion or care about what happens around them. A hundred thousand years ago they'd just have been beaten with sticks by the rest of the pack for being a raging idiot, but now we have laws in place so they believe that since nobody's beating them to death, their view is just as valid as anyone else's.

Now having said that, someone else probably feels the same way about me, which only strengthens their feelings about their own position. Again, in aforementioned past, the minority would have been outnumbered and thus would have been evolutionary (from a social perspective) eliminated, but that doesn't happen now. Along with the universal platform (internet) we've kind of become some sort of combination of hive-mind, global tribe, and expanding extremism that doesn't seem to be curtailing. We'll either end up evolving socially very quickly, or devolve into some kind of idiocratic society run by the loudest among us.

 

[brycejones]

Comes with a perk where you also start the game with a bunch of money.

To make it more accurate you should start halfway through the game with a pile of money.

 

[interchange]

That is the problem, everyone has a platform now, from the intelligent/caring/GAF people, to the blithering idiots who'd prefer to just verbally vomit over anyone around them because they have no notion or care about what happens around them. A hundred thousand years ago they'd just have been beaten with sticks by the rest of the pack for being a raging idiot, but now we have laws in place so they believe that since nobody's beating them to death, their view is just as valid as anyone else's.

Now having said that, someone else probably feels the same way about me, which only strengthens their feelings about their own position. Again, in aforementioned past, the minority would have been outnumbered and thus would have been evolutionary (from a social perspective) eliminated, but that doesn't happen now. Along with the universal platform (internet) we've kind of become some sort of combination of hive-mind, global tribe, and expanding extremism that doesn't seem to be curtailing. We'll either end up evolving socially very quickly, or devolve into some kind of idiocratic society run by the loudest among us.

It's certainly a lot easier to disregard the humanity of someone on the internet. After all, you can't see them. You don't know anything about them. You can't observe on their face the way your words affect them. You aren't forced through simple observation to realize that you're really a person that's in many ways not that different. You can be free to imagine all the villainy that you want in the other person and not be compelled to see that villainy back in yourself. You can even act in ways that get the person to take on behavior that supports the villainy you put in them.

It's a lot like @Moonbeam says. All the hate that we lay out on these forums is really just hate for ourselves. We don't know anything at all about the other person we are engaging with. It's not exactly true; we do get to build some genuine relationships here, but the effect is severely blunted.

Ironically, if Freud lived in the internet age, he would probably be overjoyed by this. There's a huge reason why he made patients lay down on a couch while he sat in a place they couldn't see and instructed them to say everything that came to mind without regard for how it might come across.