Patrick R

Well, Troll 2 is a good one. The Room. For a while Plan 9 From Outer Space was the gold standard. I think what makes something "so bad it's good" is really that it's "so uniquely weird it's fascinating". A lot of Syfy channel original movies try to ape 50's monster movies as a way of selling pre-baked camp, but I think only truly fascinating films apply. You watch Troll 2 or the Room, you cannot help but try to get inside the heads of the people who made it. When you see Sharktopolis Vs. Steampunk Squid it's not really fascinating, because it's kind of obvious what the producers are trying to do. There's no mystery. It's not evocative, it's trite. I think the sensation of "so bad it's good" really isn't far removed from seeing any work that you find compelling for it's oddness. Whether it's or (the second link is possibly NSFW for a second or two). The only real difference is that stuff that people classify as "so bad it's good" is usually trying to emulate mainstream entertainment. It looks just enough like successful versions of the same entertainment that people decide it's merely an unsuccessful version, when it's actually a much weirder version.

I am of the opinion that "so bad it's good" is a myth. Most of the worst movies ever made aren't at all compelling in any way. You go watch any number of Z-grade westerns or sci-fi movies from the 50's by Republic or some similar studio, the films are too tedious and dull to be funny. The "so good it's bad" phenomenon is actually way more of a specific thing. Video games are actually good examples of this. You think about the worst Gameboy color platformer you ever played, you probably weren't laughing and slapping your knee the whole time. It was probably just boring and frustrating and you turned it off. If we all aimed for that, I imagine it'd be hard to maintain enthusiasm So is the goal of this game jam more to do something like, say, Goat Simulator? Where it's buggy and weird but the bugs make it hilarious? Or is it a self-deprecating thing, where all the amateur programmers on the boards try their best with the understanding that their best is probably not that great at this point? Or is it to make games that parody and satirize things we find bad about video games? Or is "Bad" just the theme? Like "bad ideas", "bad guys", "bad date", "bad bad Leroy Brown"?

That was really interesting. Thanks for sharing. Man, these episode threads are getting out there. I love it.

I agree with your first sentence. I don't think it makes society more relaxed about racism. But I do think it makes nazism more appealing to those they look to recruit. I don't agree with your second sentence, not fully. I think non-racists use the Nazi aesthetic because they want to provoke and scare people. I think racists use it because they support the movement. At any rate, we're veering off a bit from the discussion of Vlambeer*. To me the more interesting discussion in the podcast was definitely how artists can create problematic works totally on accident. I just wanted to bring up the point that that imagery still has power today because nazism isn't a thing that only existed a long time ago and only affects those who lived back then to witness WW2. *And at this point I should be clear that I don't think their sins of evoking this imagery are particularly egregious or shocking, just problematic and not fully though out.

Hahaha, YES. Neo-nazis aren't just racist bastards who happen to like how swastikas look. It's a global movement, it's gangs, it's hate crimes, international networks of disinformation, propaganda and recruitment. I'm sure most nazi fetishists aren't neo-nazis but they're certainly tied together, in that the former creates a more permissible environment for the latter. So the aesthetics of nazism remain politicized. It matters how the aesthetics are used.

In that the latter draws inspiration from the culture and aesthetic choices of the former? This is a silly argument. A renaissance fair attendee is not a knight. It's play. A neo-nazi is a white supremacist. It is not play.

The "or" was distinguishing between the list of groups that are not marginalized and marginalized. The inclusion of "old" is probably problematic, I admit. I was thinking in terms of "old-fashioned morality", to which works that are sex-positive or contain vulgar language might be offensive. And I don't think I was advocating power-oppression as THE singular critical lens to apply to all work, just a broadly useful way to determine what offended parties should be given the most credence. And punch Donald Trump in the face is already a game.

Interesting it would be, but I don't think Das Boot would work if it's sailors were political nazis. It's just too strong a choice, it'd overwhelm all other aspects. The reason I bring up Das Boot in the first place is that it's pleasures are primarily visceral, not intellectual. Like an arcadey video game like Luftrausers, it's totally mainstream entertainment. It just takes the extra effort to give the traditional adventure story a thoughtful context. Another example might be Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoeven drew heavily on Nazi and other fascist imagery for the aesthetics of The Federation. But that film's primary function is to satirize war propaganda (particularly WW2 era Hollywood films), and the way it dehumanizes enemy troops. So it's a fitting, thoughtful appropriation. But we're talking about narrative films and I think that it's probably a lot trickier in games.

Broadly, you should look at who holds the power. Is the work speaking truth to power? Is the person most likely to be offended by this rich, old, white, male, straight, cis-gendered, etc. Or is it a marginalized person? But it's all subjective. Which is fine. Free speech should work both ways. People should be free to create work has the potential to be regressive, ignorant, nasty and offensive. And people should be free to call out such things when they see it. And when those two groups of people butt heads, ideally both should show empathy for each other.

A couple things worth noting: Nazism isn't a thing that happened, it's a thing that still exists. White supremacy and neo-nazism are movements that still exist. Holocaust denial is a destructive movement that still exists. The refined aesthetics of nazism are no small part of it's appeal to youth. The sub-genre "hate rock" capitalizes on hard rock's long-time fascination with images of nazism and fascism to recruit young people into white supremacy movements. So this isn't about how we talk about or represent a thing that happened 70 years ago. The aesthetics of nazism are still politicized today. Is this to say that anything to come out of WW2 Germany should be banished from the collective consciousness? Of course not. But it should be done with thought. Even well-meaning use of this imagery can have an adverse effect on an audience. In the 90's groups like KMFDM and Marilyn Manson heavily utilized fascist imagery as a satirical attack on oppressive mainstream cultures (Marilyn Manson aiming at Christianity, KMFDM in a more generally liberal anti-war, anti-censorship way). But that imagery can still be problematic if the message isn't clear. Which it sounds like it isn't in this game (again, another asshole who hasn't played it). Hate crimes are a real problem. Holocaust denial is a real problem. Obviously playing Luftrausers won't make someone become a nazi. But, the same way jokes minimizing rape can contribute to rape culture, separating nazism's "sweet aesthetic" from the horror of it can be erosive. I think a good example of thoughtful portrayal of nazism and WW2 as the protagonists in mainstream entertainment would be Das Boot. It's about a German U-Boat stuck behind enemy lines trying to get back home. It's a thriller and most of the entertainment comes from these sailors struggle to survive against all odds, under harsh conditions, narrowly evading and defeating British destroyers. It's not long before you're rooting for them. So why is this not horrible? The movie goes to great lengths to show these men are apolitical. They were sailors before Hitler rose to power. Just blue-collar men doing a job. It shows that they actually despise nazism. It opens with the captain giving a speech that is subtly anti-nazi, and later in the film they refuse to heil Hitler. **SPOILER** At the end of the film, after 3 hours of harrowing drama, they finally arrive back to occupied France and are greeted as heroes. Then the Allies bomb the port, and most the crew are killed. The film is first-class entertainment, but it also has a point about the real working-class people who get caught in the crossfire of world struggles. But as much as you empathize with them, and rooted for them to succeed, they were still officers in the German navy during WW2. The ending throws that into sharp relief. It makes the audience question the way they've been manipulated throughout the film. It's humanizing but still critical. It's thoughtful, which is what any work that involves or evokes Nazis as anything other than unequivocal evil-doers has to be, especially if it's going to be mainstream entertainment.

I find the concept of making sweeping declarations about "reference humor" really odd. References are tools. It entirely depends on how they're used. Someone on a forum can quote the Simpsons and Patton Oswalt can do a really great bit with them. And yeah, all references aren't for all people. Where is there a rule that all comedy should be for all people? Even devoid of references, no comedy is for everyone. You can walk it all the way back to Buster Keaton doing purely visual, non-verbal slapstick, and not everyone will get something out of it.

Yeah, and I'm really worried the one woman will just end up being there as a romantic interest. As long as Mike Judge doesn't let this become Nerd Entourage, I'm interested.

ARGOBOT

"I like your free podcast, but can you fundamentally change who you are so you annoy me less? Thanks, love the show!" I cannot handle negative e-mails and criticism towards me about my podcast. I've done a lot of different creative work over the years, and criticism never really bothered me much. But the podcast is just me and my friend talking. It's just us. We can't alter our dynamic. And yet all the time people send us long e-mails about all the things about us that annoy them, and how we should change. Every time someone says something nice about it, I'm happy for about 15 seconds. Everytime someone says something mean it tanks my whole day and I just want to quit.

Ignore function! It works!

Are those for sale? We've been looking for something to spruce up the bathroom.

There are certainly enough books about the subject! I think it's important to note we aren't talking about "n****r", we're talking about "n***a". You can claim they're identical, but they really aren't and haven't been for a really long time. In 2014, those are different words that mean drastically different things. I guess we just fundamentally disagree, then. To bring this back to feminism, I am glad there are male feminists (I try to be one!), but I don't for a second think that they should have equal voice in the movement. If you had mixed kids it would behoove you to learn about the history of that word and oppression, but it would be a word that would never be directed at you the way it's directed at them (or their other parent), and ultimately it would be their problem to deal with. Empathy for the pain of others is important, but it will never be the same as actually feeling that pain.

It's not really about moving away with racism. People cannot control whether racism against them exists. It's about having community, which is a tool for dealing with racism. Which is why these days it's a class issue. You won't really hear that word thrown around in middle-class black communities, except maybe by kids. But most importantly, as people who aren't members of the group in question, it's not our place to question how they deal with racism or identity or language. The way it happened was through subverting that slur, so that's how it happened. And reclaiming language isn't unusual for many kinds of groups and sub-cultures, of all different levels of oppression. "Punk" and "punk rock" is, in part, a reaction to adults and their fear of juvenile delinquency. "Oh, you think I'm a lazy punk with no respect? I'll show you a lazy punk with no respect!" Same with a word like "thug" or "gangster". I'm not trying to claim that all reclaimed words are positive steps (there is considerable debate in the modern black community about the place of the word "n****" in the 21st century), just that it's usually way more complex than you make it sound in the post I was responding to.

This is absolutely 100% not true. N***** is a really complicated thing that means a lot of things to a lot of people, but I think this viewpoint is really reductive. I think it's understandable, given that you don't live in America and deal with the legacy of slavery day to day, but in the progression of the black community and identity, reclaiming that word has meant a ton. In 2014 it's almost as much about class as race. It's not at all uncommon for latinos in low-income areas to use the word casually and familially the way that black people do. Which is possibly problematic, possibly progressive. It really depends how you look at it because, like I said, it's a really complicated issue.

Not many pejorative words have actual specific meanings. Most slurs have vague meanings or no meaning at all, outside of "You are a ." Slut has a specific meaning, and I find it to be morally neutral. I don't think it's moral or immoral to have a lot of sex with a lot of people. It's just a choice. Another example is fat. Fat is a descriptive word. Most people automatically assume fat=bad when used, but it doesn't have to be. A lot of people proudly self-identify as fat. As someone who is attracted to fat people, I don't think calling someone fat is automatically pejorative. But unless you know that that person self-identifies as fat it'd be really rude to call them that. My partner self-identifies as fat and likes being fat and I describe them as fat positively frequently. Fat isn't immoral or moral. It just is. EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, what fat is is subjective. As is slut. Hence the need for people to self-identify first.

I'd love to see where Louis CK and Steve Martin and Patton Oswalt and Steven Colbert and The Onion and Almost Any Comedian say that "comedy is dying in all media". The actual problem is that context is incredibly important in comedy, and that with stories being shared on social media that context is often obliterated. See: the Colbert thing.

I see "slut" as a neutral descriptive word. It's just that the thing it's describing (someone who is sexually promiscuous) has historically been looked down upon. I wouldn't casually call someone else a slut, because it'd be too easy for them to think I'm being negative. But I can understand someone finding the word sexually liberating. In fact I know several people who use the word slut to describe themselves for that specific reason. Unlike a word like n****, which has never had positive meanings. The subversion of that word has been more about people finding community in being identified as "n****s".

The Smash Brothers is definitely the goods.

Holy cow, the cover of Alan Simpson's book. Is it too late to get an Alan Simpson painting in the Campo Santo offices?

A few notes on comedy. I apologize in advance for being such a poor writer who uses too many parentheticals. I'm thinking about getting into footnotes. -Sean, the Gottfried example you brought up was at the Hugh Hefner roast, but I think you possibly may be thinking about the response to his tweet about the Japanese Tsunami that brought outrage and lost him his Aflac commercials. The general way the joke about 9/11 (which was something along the lines of "I'm sorry I'm late, my plane took a detour through a building" and ) has been contextualized is as sort of a sharp relief by the comedy community. The transgressiveness of the joke (contextualized by the Aristocrats joke that followed it) was sort of a message to the comedy community (whose industry is heavily centered on NYC) that it was ok to laugh about their grief, the same way they tend to deal with all grief. Obviously the key difference between a New Yorker making a 9/11 joke right after it happens and the joke about the Japanese tsunami right after it happens is context. -Eddie Murphy Delirious is the radically homophobic one. Eddie Murphy Raw is the radically misogynist one. Murphy was never a political comedian (the way Pryor or Rock or CK are) but his contribution (much like the first couple seasons of South Park, before they truly got satirical) was to assault "the tyranny of good taste". Murphy was aiming at the moral majority mentality with vulgar glee. I think that's significantly different than, say, Chris Rock's signature bit "Black People Vs. ******", but in the same ballpark as progressive (whether politically or through attitude) cultural forces. - Matt Stone is Jewish and the character of Kyle is (or at least, was, in earlier seasons) a specific depiction of what it was like to grow up Jewish in Colorado. The idea that all these kids' classes are based on personalities (fighter, wizard, whatever) but one would just be defined by religion/ethnicity feels like a pretty amazing expression of that. - Dave Barry was a newspaper columnist who wrote a humor piece FIVE DAYS A WEEK FOR OVER A DECADE. I don't care if 90% were dumb or cheesy, that is IMPRESSIVE AS HELL. Most his books were just collections of the best of those pieces. If you are interested in the combination of suburban kid boredom and RPG elements in the South Park game, I would suggest Dungeon Quest. It's from an older perspective than South Park (high school), but it basically feels like a potent mix of , 70's underground comics and D&D. Also, do you have an internal rule about not picking episode titles from the little interstitials in between main segments? Because "Piercing The Fourth Dimension" is good, but that gazoo run netted a dozen amazing potential episode titles.