I was all prepared to rant about patriarchy and entrenched sexism and privileged white dudes not caring about other people in this country. But then I slowed my roll and read the full quote, and now I’m not so mad. First, some backstory: many conservatives believe that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker are closeted Republicans/conservatives, and years ago, there was this movement amongst Young Republicans to call themselves South Park Republicans or whatever. I always thought that belief – that Parker and Stone were secretly conservative – came from the fact that they lampooned both sides of the political debate pretty equally. In previous interviews, Stone and Parker identified themselves as more libertarian, and they’ve said they hate both political extremes equally.
They’ve been talking more about politics this year in interviews though, and a few months back, they did a great piece with NY Mag about how much they hate that their “anti-PC” comedy is being repurposed by Trump-supporters and Trump himself. Then, over the weekend, Parker and Stone did an event at the Paley Center to celebrate twenty seasons of South Park, and they answered some political questions. Some highlights:
Trey Parker on the election: “It doesn’t matter who wins. I mean, either way, it’ll be great. Either person that wins will be great for comedy…. If Trump becomes President, I’m moving in with Barbara Streisand,” said Parker, before Stone added: “And she’s moving to England, and I’ll have to move down the street from Trey, so we’ll be in England with Barbara Streisand.”
Why they included Donald Trump in last season’s South Park: “We thought we’d better do this before it goes away. When you’re doing something that contemporary, you’re worried that it will drop out [of the news] the next week.” They thought people might wonder why they were doing an entire episode about such a “marginal character” in the election. They did not expect he would go on to become one of the two major party nominees.
In the new season, they’re using Mr. Garrison as a Trump stand-in: They decided to do that in the first place because they “didn’t really want to service Trump as a character,” according to Parker. As Stone added, “We were like, f–k him, we don’t want to give him the satisfaction.”
Their own political views: As for their own political views, Parker and Stone said that while they have been labeled as “libertarian” in the press over the years, all they would say is “we believe in liberty.” If he thought there was “any chance in hell” that Gary Johnson could win, Parker said he would “probably” support him over either Trump or Clinton, who he described, jokingly, as “the giant douche and the turd sandwich,” without specifying which is which.
Don’t expect direct comedy about the election: “Good political satire has a point. And for us, it would be such a sacrilege—South Park is the most important thing.” They never want to “use” the show for a political end. Instead they see figures like Trump, Clinton, and other celebrities as “serving” the show.
[From NYDN & The Daily Beast]
I mean… we could still potentially rant about Stone and Parker’s privilege, that they don’t have to take this election seriously because they’re not the people a President Trump would want to bomb, destroy, censor, deport, malign or kill. That being said, they’re entitled to their opinions and it sounds like they’re as appalled by Trump as everybody else.
Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.
Good for them. Really. If they like Gary Johnson so be it.
South Park is still on? Wow. 😐
Oh, these guys are still around? Their comedy was never funny. The quote is problematic because it reminds me of what a lot of entitled white men said back in 2000. Look what happened. In the end it mattered a great deal.
I think they’re hilarious. What kind of comedy do you like?
Did you read Krugman in the New York Times? He’s spot-on on the media’s false equivalence. Donald actually paid someone to make a problem go away and it’s being covered how? In the shadow of the Clinton Foundation’s nothing scandal.
Yes, the false equivalence is enraging.
They’re enormously successful for a couple of “not funny” dudes. The Book of Mormon approaches Genius status.
You called that one correctly! 5 years later and I still giggle when I think about it.
I found the Book of Mormon to be incredibly racist. Now I know the claim was that they made it full of racist stereotypes on purpose to point out how dumb religious white people are, but… When an entire, mostly white auditorium is cracking up about AIDS and rape, and they paid 80$+ for their seats, and the whole thing was written by two white guys who live in LA, while Boko Haram is a daily reality in Africa and Sudan is happening, just for starters, I just couldn’t get what everyone found so hilarious. It literally felt like a bunch of privileged prats laughing at rape victims in East Africa. The audience was not laughing at themselves. It was so gross. Sexist and racist trash but it had its moments skewering religion and Mormonism even though it was very ugly to watch and unfunny more often than not. I don’t think these guys usually have very important things to say.
Justjj, I was unaware that rape and aids were just a black thing. Take a moment and realize that when you think of rape and aids you think of predominantly black people and tell me thats not racist.
@ Meowow: I guess you haven’t seen the play? Because you’ve got it backwards. Justjj wasn’t being racist, she was legitimately describing the play. Basic setting/outline: a Ugandan village controlled by a female-genital-mutilation obsessed warlord, where a local villager is threatening to have sex with a baby to cure his AIDS (they’ve run out of teenage virgins). Eventually everyone gets “saved” by a white Mormon missionary.
It is satire, the intent is to mock white missionaries. But to set up the joke, they used some pretty horrific caricatures of Africans. There’s a very fine line between laughing at the irony in a stereotype and simply laughing at a stereotype. I can see that it would be highly uncomfortable to watch in a mostly white male audience – one where you’re not sure whether they actually get the satire or not.
Lighten up, Francis.
Let me guess, you’re a How I Met Your Mother fan…
They invented a talking turd and now they want us to be stuck with one?
That is one brilliant line!
Omg my husband’s middle name is Blake lol. *high five*
Ha ha. Brilliant line. But what they actually said is we’d be stuck with either a giant douche or a turd sandwich. (Without saying which was which, of course.) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/02/south-park-creators-on-trump-and-hillary-the-giant-douche-and-the-turd-sandwich.html
Um, no? Back to the article……
White males with money–of course their lives won’t change with a Trump presidency.
If you are poor, a woman, a person of color, however….
My thoughts exactly, Minx.
Yes Minx! Rich white dudes will be fine no matter who wins but everyone else is screwed if Trump/ Pence wins! It is white privilege to also be “wah wah Bernie didn’t win so I am not voting”. If you have a vagina, color, or are lgbt you should be afraid especially of Pence. Trump is not funny he is an obvious racist! Pence wanted Indiana women to have to pay for burial/cremation of miscarriages. Can you imagine paying over $3,000 for services or feeling they would come after you for something that happens regularly to women. Don’t get me started on how he thought forcing women to have birth defective children is also a great idea. How they are polling neck and neck with Clinton is scary!
This exactly
Yeah, I get that they’re trying to be flippant and keep up their personas, but…it’s a serious thing that could have major consequences for many, many people. I guess it’s easy to be flippant about it when you’re in the rich white male group.
They said either major party candidate win would be good for comedy. They’re right. Tragedy + Time = Comedy. Comedy is a safe way to highlight social injustices. Comedy is a coping mechanism for all people, not just the privileged and not just the marginalized. Two comics talking about how they rejoice in the fodder this election has provided for them is NOT the panty-twister y’all are making it out to be.
Yeah, that’s what I took from the quotes too.
I don’t think they are speaking politically, I think they are talking about how the presidency affects the show. It sounds like they are going out of their way NOT to talk about their personal politics.
Provided you believe what Trump says, which is always fraught when it comes to politicians.
‘It doesn’t matter who wins. I mean, either way, it’ll be great. Either person that wins will be great for comedy…. ‘
Won’t it be HILARIOUS when Trump starts a World War over an imagined personal slight? I’m already rolling in the aisles.
I know it will be hilarious when I get paid even less money and can’t afford a place to live and can’t afford my medications (which I’m almost at that point now anyway) because he is only looking out for other rich white dudes. I will be laughing it up living on the street. Until I lose it and kill myself. This will be comedy gold!
Yeah, if he wins I can’t wait till he publicly insults Kim Jong-un. :-/
I know. Can you imagine how Trump would have dealt with the recent trip to China and the insults that came from the president of the Philippines? Trump’s head would have exploded due to his thin skin and insecurities.
Dude bros rejoicing at more LULZ cause their bottom lines/safety/rights wont be in any way affected, OF COURSE Bros, OF COURSE, I find these *ssholes always going on about how they’ll leave the country after their cute protest vote ( and how feasibly They CAN do this) wearing thin on me
I can’t imagine why they would want to come to England (actually, it’s bloody Britain or the UK FFS, you annoying man), QQ. Trump is just *talking* about building walls. We are actually bloody well doing it. Look!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/uk-immigration-minister-confirms-work-will-begin-on-big-new-wall-in-calais
Effing shameful. But of course, we’d probably happily let in Trey and Matt.
(Caveat: I actually like their humour. They seem to get to the heart of the idiocy and hypocrisy involved on all sides of the political spectrum and I like it when comedy makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.)
I like their Humor too Sixer, shoot! I Made my bf an entire Christmas tree worth of ornaments of South Park with the doggone town as the tree skirt!, that is how much I love South Park but I find that line of thought from people that essentially have nothing to lose Tired/obnoxious and just as Me First as the Republican Types
Quite. How fun it would be to decamp to Britland and laugh at their wall instead. Cos of course, we can do that if we like.
Their season with the PC principal was brilliant, I could unpack those episodes for days. I don’t discount them just because they’re white guys. I also think liberty is something extremely misunderstood these days on both sides…when I look at politics in the US, I shudder to think where we will be, what we will think of each other, in 10 years.
the latest two seasons have been spot on. I love them
The boys did a fantastic job on the last season lampooning the PC crowd. I stood and applauded when the last episode aired. It was brilliant!
Good for both of ’em! Many of us actually do value the balanced views of the Libertarian party and Johnson/Weld:
Parker/Stone’s work is consistently funny and honest. The interview is the same..
“What is Aleppo?”
Great candidate.
That one question just ended Gary Johnson’s chance to get into the debates, or the Oval Office. Maybe Mike Barnacle could moderate one of the debates, and we could end Trumps run as well!
But sh!t like “let’s build a wall” or “no, gays should not be married in NY” are one-way tickets to DC! Dafuq.
Their lives won’t change an ilk either way. Must be nice.
Yeah, it’ll be so much fun for those of us suffering under Trump/Pence. So much fun.
For some reason I’m thinking this quote is out of context . I think someone asked them which candidate would be better for their comedy . I’ve seen several people on SNL asked the same question . I could be wrong , though .
Exactly. I took it more that professionally they don’t care. Personally, they could have very strong feelings. They have always lampooned everyone and kept quiet about their personal politics.
From the same two Middle Aged toddlers that still won’t admit Global Warming is real. Like with most real world politics they deal with in their show they are again completely wrong.
If you are anything but a rich white male, it absolutely matters who wins the presidential election.
White bro privilege in action. I love South Park but shut up, guys.
I’ve worked with Trey and Matt. They do not like talking about politics, and stuff like this is always them trying not to get sucked into dogmatic, either/or conversations. They are incredibly sharp, however, and they can go toe to toe with Jon Stewart, whom I consider to be an all-time great political satirist, on politics or any subject. They don’t like “Democrat” and “Republican” because they don’t like large organizations with centralized power, same reason they don’t like religion. I would say they’re into coalition politics, but they’d probably argue with me because they don’t like being pinned down. Their comments could be the result of privilege, they are very rich straight white guys, after all, but they also believe that the president is just a figurehead. If you could get them to go further down the rhetorical road, you’d probably get them, especially Trey, talking about the supreme court justices and who is paying to get senators and representatives into congress. I don’t mean to make them sound like conspiracy theorists or anything, but my experience of them is that they put a lot more weight on state/local politics than they do at the federal level because they think federal politics, especially the presidency, is a dog and pony show. The older I get, the more sane they sound to me.
yes yes yes, thank you for putting this so well. i get so frustrated with how people write this off as EVIL STRAIGHT WHITE MAN NO UNDERSTAND when clearly they understand to some extent, as clear as they are privileged, they do get that there are very big problems. i cannot count the times i have actually learned something from the show. i am sitting there laughing and realize that they are talking about someone like me. they have, basically, made me see my own privilege a few times.
@what the what “EVIL STRAIGHT WHITE MAN NO UNDERSTAND” god that made me laugh
This summary is everything.
That makes sense up to a certain point…but the SCOTUS is at the Federal level and they absolutely have a lot of power and influence over the lives of citizens. Scalia and Alito have done so much harm to our country! There is a very big difference in the SCOTUS choices that come from the Democrats and those that come from Republicans.
I agree, but the president isn’t picking those names out of a hat. They’re determined after the input and influence of a lot of people we’re *not* voting for. As conspiratorial as I’ll get is to say I think we ought to elect SCOTUS just like we do other judges.
I don’t think they come from people we aren’t voting for. The SCOTUS justices are picked from judges who have the experience necessary to be on the court. That IS a limited list…but it is developed by Presidents in past administrations that nominate federal/appellate level judges.
For example, Obama has nominated more women, people of color, and religious minorities to judicial positions than all other previous Presidents combined. He just nominated the first Muslim-American to possibly serve at the federal/appellate level. Having that level of experience is what puts someone on the short list for SCOTUS.
You are correct in the idea that the seeds for future SCOTUS members are planted long before a President gets there, but we can’t ignore that those seeds are actually planted by previous Presidents.
wow at everyone LITERALLY being “we could still moan about them even though they are pointing out the issues with either candidate” pretty sure they are well aware of their privilege. i suppose everyone missed the incredibly touching episode where they gentrified the poor part of town, focusing on Kenny? they bring information to the uninformed and I find that to be a very good thing on their part. both candidates DO have huge flaws, if Trump wasn’t so extreme and racist it would be more difficult to determine who to vote for. it is just amazing how they can only talk about their show and everyone gets hurt over it. i feel like Goldfinger “then there is no pleasing you!”
Tired of the false equivalencies. Big difference between an unskilled, moronic, self-centered, self-serving bigot and a tireless lifelong public servant. They should look up “liberty” and they should look up “libertarian,” they are not the same. They should also look up the meaning of “freedoms” under the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
They should study Johnson’s platform of removing all government regulation while they’re at it. He wants to abolish the minimum wage law and all income tax.
Younger voters might want to think again, about all of it. This isn’t just about worry-free weed.
So many mainstream guys think they’re not in the mainstream but they are, they are and they make money off it every day.
On the other hand, I’d be delighted to have Johnson cut into the Trump vote in key states.
Yes. I have very real problems with Libertarianism. Listen, we’ve tried to varying degrees letting the invisible hand control the market. Income inequality gets worse, workers get no protections, the environment is left to fend for itself…
Add to that the troubling anti-choice thread that runs through the group…
“On the other hand, I’d be delighted to have Johnson cut into the Trump vote in key states.”
Actually, polls show Johnson seems to be hurting Clinton more than Trump.
They aren’t talking about how the candidates would affect the country, they are talking about how the candidates would affect the show. They are saying that they believe in liberty and are not libertarians, so I’m sure they know the difference. It doesn’t sound like they are strong Johnson supporters, either. They were just answering a direct question with some qualifications.
Not to mention the Johnson’s intentions to privatize EVERYTHING, which would truly be awful. He wants to double down on the privatization of prisons, one of the biggest drivers of the bloated prison population.
“Tireless lifelong public servant”? The only thing the Clintons serve is themselves
I don’t think a family whose child/children have benefited from SCHIP would agree with you. Also, more than half of all of the people in the entire world who have AIDS get their life saving medication from the Clinton Foundation. It is a higher rated charity than the Red Cross.
GOP talking points don’t have legitimacy if you vet them.
Got to agree with this. As a lifelong Democrat, who had to suffer through selfish, grandstanding “libertarians” who knew they didn’t have a chance in hell of winning and also listen to their half baked supporters (who always seemed to be rich, usually white, entitled trust fund children, who didn’t know what they were talking about) it sometimes made me want to pull my hair out. These idiots thought Nader was a libertarian, when he ran on the Green Party’s ticket! That’s how informed they were. Ugh, thanks for Bush, assholes. And maybe destabilizing the Middle East and the economy. Goddamn. Then they magically expect Obama to clean that up? Right! The war has lasted longer than Vietnam, with no drafting. I have friends who have done multiple tours, until they need to get out – of course with wounds and PTSD. But not those lucky libertarians, etc. I loved it when Kathy Griffin went to entertain the troops in Iraq. She, as well as Sarah Silverman and Al Franken make me laugh and they all back Hillary. And so do I. As far as I’m concerned the libertarians just care about themselves and their quixotic, selfish image. Not anything real. Just a lot of bs and hot air. And they even know they are going to lose. Stop fucking with real politicians like the Democrats.
To take this quote from the article “Nader Elected Bush: Why We Shouldn’t Forget” by Bill Scher, on the site realclearpolitics.com – “Don’t pretend your actions don’t have consequences. To willfully ignore the practical implications of your vote, and blame the candidate for the choice you make make, is an abdication of your responsibility as a voter”.
Essentially he’s saying vote strategically, not for a candidate like Nader, for example, who knows they’re going to lose, no matter what. That election was no joke. What a waste of a vote that could have been a practical, helpful choice and spared us years of George W. Bush.
I love their show. And both parties suck. The farther right and farther left you get, sucks even worse. How does their expressing their dislike for both Clinton and Trump make them Trump supporters? And for the poster above, who thinks having a birth defective child isn’t a “great idea”, piss off. I have one of birth defective kids, and she’s pretty great.
Aw, I saw that comment too and agree that it was poorly worded. I think the poster might have meant that it’s your right to decide whether to have a baby or not, whatever the health of the child may ultimately be. That it’s unfair and wrong to have someone else decide for you.
I’m sure your daughter is a dream, and she’s lucky she’ll grow up having a role model that always sticks up for her!
You are well within your right to choose to have a disabled child. I don’t believe you should be forced to have one. The extra cost monitaritly and psychologically is not for everyone. Glad you are having a positive experience.
Every time I hear “liberatarian” I throw up in my mouth a little.
Me too. For years I’ve thought it’s just a way for a secret Republican to pretend to be hip.
Do you have any idea what the political viewpoint really is? It’s strict constructionism- a mix of fiscal conservativism and old southern democracy minus the, ya know, penchant for slavery support. Most Republicans are NOT libertarian. Libertarians don’t want to legislate personal behavior, in or out of the bedroom, with or without drugs. So… maybe let the vomit out and make room for thinking.
Yeah, no. There’s a strong thread of sexual control of women in the Libertarian Pay, same as there is in the Republican Party. And it’s no better or more realistic than Occupy Wall Street in it’s complete lack of fact based thinking.
There are histories of oppression in all political parties. That’s the idea- they marginalize other groups for success. However, there is a difference between Conservativism and the GOP (which is “conservative”), as there is a difference between Liberalism and the Democratic Party (which is “liberal”), as there is a difference between Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. The way of thinking is the most analagous to the intent of the framers- small government that only exists to ensure that inidividual liberties are not infringed upon by other individuals or by the government itself.
I agree @BabyJane. That’s a true definition of a libertarian and personally I don’t have an issue with it in theory since I tend to believe in smaller government in all areas of life. The problem IMO is that alot of disaffected Republicans have tried to co-opt the term. Like (ugh) Glenn Beck. He calls himself a libertarian but is simply a conservative that is pissed off at the Republican party for not being in his mind CONSERVATIVE enough.
The same thing actually happened with the Tea Party movement IMO.. It started as a response by fiscal conservatives to the bank bailout and was quickly co-opted by Big C conservative GOPers that were pissed at the Republican party and George W Bush for things like Bush’s attempt at immigration reform, global trade, the whole notion of “compassionate conservatism”, etc.
In a way it’s not that shocking that Trump came along and dismantled the Republican party, They’ve been tearing themselves apart internally for about 10 years now.
@BabyJane: It’s utopian claptrap. In my opinion. Kindly show me one libertarian country on a modern scale. Oh I know one: Honduras. Look it up. Also, “framers” those endorsers of massive slavery, a system so enmeshed in U.S. founding that it was an active part of it’s foreign policy? Yeh, no thanks.
Why is the absence of a modern libertarian national government evidence that it’s “utopian claptrap?” Along the same logic you could claim that the presence of despotic dictators must mean it’s effective and reasonable…
I don’t know how to make this any clearer. Libertarianism, as a political philosophy (NOT PARTY) is about strict constructionism and upholding the intent of the Constitution which, yes, was in part written by some people who had slaves. But so was EVERY OTHER founding document, including the first 10 amendments that I bet you would defend (except maybe the 2nd? Just conjecture here). So, since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and, frankly, a pretty good one, yeah I’ll defend any political position that wants to abide by it with very little creative interpretation like “necessary and proper” expansions of federal mandates. Byeeee
Have you maybe thought for a moment that not everyone supports fiscal conservatism? Just because someone dislikes Libertarians does not mean that they are not familiar with their viewpoints.
Your label, my label – Stone and Parker have a point here about labels being meaningless. Instead I want to examine Johnson’s record – does he embody my hopes for America? No.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-libertarian-president-new-mexico-governor-record/
Honestly, these guys do kind of purt me off on this issue because the two are not equivalent? Like, Hillary has her problems like any candidate, but I find pretty insulting to compare a woman with her kind of qualifications to Trump. And frankly, I don’t really get the accusations of her being representative of the extreme left wing when she and Obama are literally the most moderate candidates we’ve had in years. BERNIE is an example of extremism, not her.
I also find libertarianism without self-awareness hilarious in the way that communism is, mainly because they fall into that category of political systems that sound brilliant in concept but are seriously flawed in execution. Both are systems that would fundamentally benefit the few and privileged unless serious social discrepancies were first addressed.
Please provide an example, even a hypothetical one, of how Libertarianism benefits the few privileged.
I have seen where the Libertarian candidate is for privatization of the educational system. Poor would suffer from this, the wealthy would benefit.
That is an example of a candidate, claiming a party, wanting to disenfranchise people. Just like when “Democrat” Bill Clinton supported crime bills that disenfranchised minorities. A label means nothing. Libertarianism, in its pure philosophical form, does not marginalize anyone. Also, to which candidate were you referring?
Wow, I posted a reply but it got deleted.
The candidate is Gary Johnson, but more importantly, the Libertarian Party platform states that they are for the privatization of schools. It says that the parents should be entirely financially responsible for their children’s education. If a child is impoverished and their parents are 100% responsible for education costs, they will have a lesser quality of an education than a child who is not impoverished.
Additionally, Bill Clinton wasn’t a nominee representing a party in an election with his crime bills. He was a Democrat president compromising with a GOP congress. Legislation is not where you’ll find ideological purity. A party platform is, however.
You won’t find political philosophical purity in legislation OR in parties, so I half agree with you. And yeah, the Libertarian Party platform on education has serious flaws- but again, and I don’t know any way to clarify this apart from what I’ve already said, a political philosophy (conservativism, liberalism, libertarianism) is not the same as the Party that arbitrarily claims the name. True conservatives would want minimal government intervention; however, the GOP has proven time and time again that government intervention in issues like marriage and abortion is their priority. Therefore, the GOP is NOT truly conservative despite claiming to be so. Much like the Libertarian Party is not truly Libertarian in all issues. The philosophy is separate from the party. And I argue that the Libertarian philosophy is the most similar to founding intentions and the best way to preserve as much liberty as possible.