Another person offended by Duke
Originally posted by Bardock42
South Parks offensiveness is a means to an end. It's most often a way to communicate the moral or point of the story. Is that the case for Duke Nukem?
South Park's offensiveness isn't always offset by a moral reflection of the themes involved in every episode. Cartman feeding someone his own parents is witty is it? Where was the morality there?
South Park is funny, I enjoy it but only because the boys are so ignorant about the situations they get involved in it allows me not to become offended by it so why is it different for Duke? Can he not be some ignorant macho-man and be funny too?
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
South Park's offensiveness isn't always offset by a moral reflection of the themes involved in every episode. Cartman feeding someone his own parents is witty is it? Where was the morality there?South Park is funny, I enjoy it but only because the boys are so ignorant about the situations they get involved in it allows me not to become offended by it so why is it different for Duke? Can he not be some ignorant macho-man and be funny too?
I suppose it could be funny, but as far as I can tell it is played mostly straight, he is the hero and his behaviour gets rewarded. Cartman is generally the ass and no one likes him and he tends to ultimately lose (though not always), so finding South Park funny surely doesn't mean you'd have to find Duke funny, they are not funny in the same way.
Originally posted by Bardock42
so finding South Park funny surely doesn't mean you'd have to find Duke funny, they are not funny in the same way.
But they are both fictitious and therefore should not be subject to moral outrage like this. No-one is getting hurt or raped, its just a bunch of pixels on the screen. This constitutes the whole reason why South Park is even allowed to exist, if it were live-action it wouldn't even get off the ground. Preacher too, which why there hasn't been any solid film adaption and probably won't be, because of insane amounts of objectional content that could only exist on a comic page.
Not to mention that no one that I recall brought 'Duke Nukem: Time To Kill' up to such standards when the alien pigs were represented as policeman - a term used to denigrate policemen in various forms of fiction and real life. But is that considered witty? Not too sure a policeman would agree.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
But they are both fictitious and therefore should not be subject to moral outrage like this. No-one is getting hurt or raped, its just a bunch of pixels on the screen. This constitutes the whole reason why South Park is even allowed to exist, if it were live-action it wouldn't even get off the ground. Preacher too, which why there hasn't been any solid film adaption and probably won't be, because of insane amounts of objectional content that could only exist on a comic page.Not to mention that no one that I recall brought 'Duke Nukem: Time To Kill' up to such standards when the alien pigs were represented as policeman - a term used to denigrate policemen in various forms of fiction and real life. But is that considered witty? Not too sure a policeman would agree.
I disagree. Something being fictional doesn't excuse it from making immoral statements and if people disagree with them they should voice their opinions.
I think what protects South Park and Preacher to a degree is their comparative obscurity (sure South Park is very popular for Comedy Central, but it's not something everyone knows about or could exactly point out any specifics about). In South Park's case it longevity also helps as being seen as an established thing.
But it seems like we are getting off the issue at hand. Every form of expression is subject to people's reactions including cartoons and video games. One reason why I'd stand up for South Park is that their messages are ultimately good and moral to my view of life (perhaps with some expeptions, but it's nothing that I find offensive or degrading to anyone), Duke on the other hand seems unapologetically misogynistic and from some of the bits I read by the developers that's what they want "A real man"...to me that's a stereotype that's harmful, and I don't support it, I understand the outrage, but I also feel like the developers have the right to voice their, in my view stupid and ignorant, opinion, but they'll have to deal with the backlash that it creates.
Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequences.
Alright, was all over the place their anyways 😐
I don't know, South Park is quite popular. People don't watch it like they used to, but it is still one of the most famous western animated shows. Cartman gets his just desserts but in the episode with the chilli, he definitely "won".
Anyways, Duke was outraged at the girls dying. The joke was crude to some, but he was saving and rescuing so he got rewarded for that. Not for harming innocents or anything of the sort.
Originally posted by Kazenji
well duh i knew thatonly reason i said what i said because i keep seeing this word misogynistic thrown around because of the new game and i know what it means.
Words develop and may move somewhat away from their roots.
He may not "hate" women, but he doesn't see them as equals, rather as something to own, no?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I don't know, South Park is quite popular. People don't watch it like they used to, but it is still one of the most famous western animated shows. Cartman gets his just desserts but in the episode with the chilli, he definitely "won".Anyways, Duke was outraged at the girls dying. The joke was crude to some, but he was saving and rescuing so he got rewarded for that. Not for harming innocents or anything of the sort.
Well people can get offended by all sorts of stuff, which is their right, just like it is your right to point out that you think they are stupid to get offended by it.
Sweet Tooth rules.
Duke Nukem saves the world and he's a villain? He's what most males fantasize about being at one point in their lives. Doing what he wants, getting what he wants, and having what he wants.
Kratos is a villain protagonist. Not Duke.
Originally posted by killermoverWhy would he be a feminist? That term has butchered many things. Doesn't mean he hates them because he isn't some whipped mangina.
He's not exactly pro femenist to be honest. He acts like their pets more than people and he tends to them like a hobby.(hint hint)
Originally posted by Bardock42Oh of course. I didn't say they couldn't get offended by it. But the contradictions and considering the nature of the material would be like playing MK and complaining about blood.
Words develop and may move somewhat away from their roots.He may not "hate" women, but he doesn't see them as equals, rather as something to own, no?
Well people can get offended by all sorts of stuff, which is their right, just like it is your right to point out that you think they are stupid to get offended by it.
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterThats exaclty what makes him like Kratos and Sweet Tooth. He's a sexist, unethtical, muderous, dark hero or villain. He saves the world for his own personal interests, aliens stealing his babes. It's not like he's a good role model, he flings poop around like a child and despite the human race is dying in front his eyes or women being raped and turned into alien things, he makes a joke about it.
Sweet Tooth rules.Duke Nukem saves the world and he's a villain? He's what most males fantasize about being at one point in their lives. Doing what he wants, getting what he wants, and having what he wants.
Also Duke kills innocent people to. He's not a hero.
Why would he be a feminist? That term has butchered many things. Doesn't mean he hates them because he isn't some whipped mangina. Oh of course. I didn't say they couldn't get offended by it. But the contradictions and considering the nature of the material would be like playing MK and complaining about blood.He doesn't respect the female sex as nothing more as sex pets to him, he degrades them by getting them on his bandwagon and pushes them aside for another.