#we participate with culture. obviously. its impossible not to. but we often dont do it on purpose. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

traitor-boyfriend · 6 years

Note

is it me or matt and trey dont give a single shit about making simple funny episodes about the kids and its ruining the show since the wacky pompous adventures envolving the adults are kinda meh?

i don’t know if i would say that they ‘don’t give a single shit’ b/c that seems a little more harsh and finite than i would ascribe to them, but i definitely think you have a point. i think a ton of their best episodes do tend to revolve around kids simply being kids and participating in childish activities: raisins, lil crime stoppers, good times with weapons, make love not warcraft, marjorine, return of the fellowship of the ring to the two towers, guitar queer-o (which is personally my favorite episode of all time) are a handful i could name off the top of my head that are focused mainly on the kids playing make-believe or where the episode is catapulted by juvenile misunderstandings that are typical of 10 yr olds. but there are a bunch of episodes that follow that formula in the early seasons and i would say that that’s how most of the earliest episodes were written. every now and then in recent seasons we get an episode like this but they’re few and far between; i’m not sure whether they’ve abandoned this kind of story b/c they prefer political commentary, they think they’ve exhausted every plot-line of this nature, or what i think is more likely, both of them are so far removed from the age of their characters that they just can’t connect with that mentality in the way they used to. matt and trey were in their mid-twenties when the show first aired so it’s not like memories of what it was like to be a kid were all that far gone to them. but the world has changed a lot since then; kids now grow up in a much different time than the one the two of them grew up in, and though they’re obviously observing the culture of children now and implementing it into the show (a good example of this would be all the boys now having cell phones, having computers in their rooms, references to video games popular w children now like minecraft) i don’t know if they can effectively capture the same experience of what it’s like to be a kid now given their age. not that there aren’t some universal constants! all kids play pretend, all kids build fantasy worlds – the stick of truth is a great example of this. but this is one that i’m unsure about! i think it’s a multitude of reasons

a lot of the political humor of early seasons came from the situational irony surrounding the boys becoming unwittingly involved in some complex issue and their obvious naivety towards the topic. there’s a lot of examples of this but one that came to mind right away was in ‘the wacky molestation adventure’ when sheila tells kyle that he can go to the concert with his friends if he brings democracy to cuba. and i’m pretty kyle even asks her “what’s cuba?” after. obviously this is given as an impossibility but kyle, an idealistic child, sings a sad song about how he can’t be happy while the cubans are unhappy and sends a heartfelt letter to fidel castro – and it changes his mind! and kyle actually brings democracy to cuba. that’s just one example but they often treat political issues like that in earlier seasons. now they’ve made the boys so hyper-aware of all that happens around them that there’s no longer any ignorance on their part, so it makes sense that they don’t necessarily “feel” like children anymore. they’ve turned into mini-mouthpieces for matt and trey to express their view on whatever topic they’re skewering.

i whole-heartedly agree with your take on the adults; i have been so, so exhausted by how prominent randy is, and gerald last season was a nightmare. i don’t mind them playing a role but the adults (well, specifically randy and garrison now) have come so far in the forefront that the boys are essentially fading into the background of their own show. and i think this is a part of the aging issue; i think now that they’re in their mid-forties, matt and trey identify more with the adults of the series and thus using them more often. but the adults don’t have the charm and humor stan, kyle, kenny, and cartman do, and the show is absolutely suffering for it.

#hope this adequately answered your question?#there's more i want to write but this is so long already #Anonymous #south park

18 notes · View notes

mavwrekmarketing · 7 years

Link

A few weeks ago, Dries Buytaert, founder of the popular open-source CMS Drupal, asked Larry Garfield, a prominent Drupal contributor and long-time member of the Drupal community, to leave the Drupal project. Why did he do this? He refuses to say. A huge furor has erupted in response not least because the reason clearly has much to do with Garfields unconventional sex life.

More specifically, Garfield is into BDSM. Even more specifically, hes a member of the Gor community, an outr subculture of an outr subculture, one built around a series of thirty-odd books by John Norman which are, basically, John Carter of Mars meets Fifty Shades of Grey. Essentiallyas I understand ita community who are interested in, and/or participate in, elaborate (consensual!) sexual subjugation fantasies, in which men are inherently superior to women. I know all this because of Garfields lengthy public response to his ouster, self-deprecatingly titled TMI about me:

Yes, I am one of those people Despite the total lack of evidence that alternative lifestyle cultures offer any harm to anyone, there is still a great deal of prejudice and bigotry regarding it someone, I do not know who, stumbled across my profile on a private, registration-required website for alternative-lifestyle people that information made it to the Community Working Group (CWG), who concluded there was no code of conduct violation present for [them] to take any action on in my first contact with Dries, he asked me to step down from Drupal Drupal has been the cornerstone of my career for the past nearly 12 years Dries wouldnt budge on me leaving, including making it clear that it wasnt an option, but an instruction informing me that Id been summarily dismissed from my position as track chair and as a speaker at DrupalCon, per [my] conversation with Dries here I am, being bullied, harassed, and excluded because of my personal activities, which I dont even publicize much less advocate for in tech circles.

Buytaert (who is also co-founder and CTO of Acquia, a Drupal platform which has raised ~$175 million over the years and has been struggling to IPO for a few years now) retorts:

when a highly-visible community members private views become public, controversial, and disruptive for the project, I must consider the impact all people are created equally. [sic] I cannot in good faith support someone who actively promotes a philosophy that is contrary to this any association with Larrys belief system is inconsistent with our projects goals I recused myself from the Drupal Associations decision [to dismiss Garfield from his conference role] Many have rightfully stated that I havent made a clear case for the decision I did not make the decision based on the information or beliefs conveyed in Larrys blog post.

Sigh. This sad mess is something of a perfect storm of Code of Conduct conflicts. It is one which raises a number of interesting questions. It also raises several quite boring ones, so lets get them out of the way:

Does this matter? (Isnt this just prurient clickbait?)

Is it OK for an open-source community to ban/ostracize a member for being involved in BDSM, or other forms of unconventional but consensual adult sexual behavior?

More generally, is it OK for an open-source community to ban/ostracize a member purely because their belief system perhaps better described as a complicated fantasy milieu in which they happen to spend their personal time was doxxed?

These questions are boring not because they are unimportant, but because the answers are so obvious: yes (no), hell no, and hell no.

Ill unpack the first: open-source communities/projects are crucially important to many peoples careers and professional lives cf the cornerstone of my career so who they allow and deny membership to, and how their codes of conduct are constructed and followed, is highly consequential.

I really, really hope I dont have to unpack the two hell nos. But in case I do, let me quote this excellent blog post from Nadia Eghbal:

In the past, Dries mightve kicked Larry out because BDSM is a threat to family values. Today, leaders like Dries kick Larry out because BDSM is a threat to gender equality. Unfortunately, the end result is the same Beliefs are not actions. We cannot persecute people for what they believe, no matter how much it disgusts us, and simultaneously maintain a free and open democracy If diversity is our dogma, call me spiritual, not religious. I still pray for the same things as you, but I wont be at the witch trials.

Which is brilliantly put and I hope settles the previous questions. However. The Garfield Situation also raises two questions which are far more complex and interesting:

Under what circumstances, and via what kind of due process, is it OK for communities to publicly condemn people for secret reasons?

Is it OK to ban/ostracize community members for (legal) behavior which occurs entirely outside the community?

Obviously sometimes organizational decisions have to be made based on information that must remain confidential, for legal or ethical reasons. But if youre making such a decision, you really have to do so in the right way. What is the right way?

Probably something close to the opposite of what Buytaert and the Drupal Association did. Even if their decision was correct, which currently seems at best suspect, their complete lack of process transparency, and Buytaerts vaguely worded hinting-without-really-saying-anything statement, makes it very hard to have any faith in it.

Their accusations are so vague nonexistent non-accusations, really that Dries & co. could surely have told the community substantially more (indeed, anything) about Garfields problematic behavior, if any, without revealing sensitive information. For instance, they could have said theyd received reports of threats, harassment, or coercion by Garfield, if any such reports existed. They have said nothing of the sort.

(For what its worth, a well-informed source of mine reports: Its worth noting that a handful of women who worked with Larry did not report harassment or abuse from him in the workplace. We cant know for sure if he committed offenses, but if there were allegations or even rumors of his mistreatment of women we would be having a very different conversation right now.)

They could also have cited which elements of the Drupal Code of Conduct he violated, if any. They have not done so but theyve expelled him anyhow. Isnt that Code of Conduct, and its associated Conflict Resolution Policy, supposed to be what dictates the rules of behavior and interaction in the community? Doesnt overruling that written code with arbitrary decisions made for secret reasons reveal that in practice it is an irrelevance with no actual weight or importance?

I reached out to Buytaert in the hope of clarification; he did not respond.

Its hard not to get the impression, from the little that we do know, and the manner in which it has been miscommunicated, that whats actually deemed unacceptable here is that Garfields kink has spilled outside of his personal life i.e. that his real sin is that he was doxxed. Which, as noted, is firmly in hell no territory.

It is of course entirely possible that this impression is incorrect, and that Buytaert and the Drupal Association have done the right thing. But they have offered no evidence, no arguments, and no reasons for their decision. It seems obvious to me that they have a moral obligation to their community to do so. You cant ban people without at least sketching the outline of what it is they did wrong. Just trust us is not enough

especially since it also seems possible that the CTO and co-founder of a heavily funded pre-IPO company has participated in expelling a man from what his been his professional community for the last twelve years, ignoring that communitys own Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy, because it was decided he was guilty of, essentially, thoughtcrime; that no real accusations have been made, and no allegations of problematic behavior have been cited, because none such exist.

A third plausible scenario, based on the tea leaves of Buytaerts phrase actively promotes, is that Garfield has been banned for expressing views outside the Drupal community which are deemed unacceptable inside. This is not a new issue in the open-source world: I wrote about it last year, in the context of Curtis Yarvin and Opalgate:

Should communities accept people who hold repugnant views, as long as they dont express them within that community? Or should they be expelled, because its assumed that their views influence their community work in a negative way, or because their presence makes other people feel unsafe?

Personally, both answers make me feel deeply uneasy. Humans are messy, complex, and contradictory; human interactions are that squared; the results are so complex and context-sensitive that they often need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than by any hard-and-fast rule.

although in those cases, the views in question were clearly expressed publicly, not privately, and were not intended as part of any BDSM fantasy world. Does that apply here? Who knows? Certainly not the Drupal community.

Its impossible to judge the Garfield situation, because all we are permitted to know is that it has been prejudged for us, by people who refuse to tell us anything about either their evidence or their decision process. It is, however, very easy to judge whether the people who have made and communicated this decision are, by the way they have done so, actually serving their community. And that answer is, once again, Im sorry to say: hell no.