• hope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      If I had a nickel for every time a character with the name Shabadoo appeared in a Matt Groening cartoon, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice, right?

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “Shabadoo” totally sounds like a Conan expression/utterance (I can literally hear him saying it in my head lol), so wouldn’t surprise me if those were him. Either that or he picked up a similar habit after hanging with the other Simpsons writers.

  • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    A huge departure from the Japan episode, and the Gazebo episode before it, woof

    • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I just think a joke was a joke, and most things were fair game.

      The prevailing sentiment was of acceptance, and real prejudice was condemned. Twitter didn’t invent the idea of being a decent human.

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        “It’s okay because there are very few of them” was how I remember it being described as a child. Same with “It’s okay because they’re white” for why it’s okay to make Polish jokes.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        Exactly, it’s like how South Park worked as well, everyone knew they didn’t discriminate but took shots at everything. That way they got to be offensive as hell without anyone taking offense.

        Now everything is a micro aggression and writers have to be super careful making a joke for general consumption. So it’s not surprising that the PG-rated comedy market leans so heavily on slapstick, fart jokes and mild pop culture references.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          4 months ago

          without anyone taking offense

          Uh, everyone was offended by South Park originally. That’s the point. It’s for rebellious teens and adults who pretend they “think differently”.

          It’s elementary school children swearing their asses off. Just the concept alone is offensive to many people.

          • evranch@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m not denying that it was offensive (the show was designed to be offensive), but that people “took offense”. It wasn’t taken off the air, was it?

            I think it’s a bit harsh on SP to classify it for

            rebellious teens and adults who pretend they “think differently”

            as it always has been a satire show in the guise of “edgy and offensive”. Few other shows were willing to take on Scientology, images of Mohammed etc. For all that the show is juvenile and stupid, it uses that stupidity to barbecue sacred cows.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 months ago

              It was very clearly written for males aged 14 to 18 and 18 to 25. Some 25 to 35 as well. TV shows are written for demographics and "rebellious teens and adults who pretend they ‘think differently’ " is a category. If you fit into the category, it may be hard for you to tell.

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Bro, people have been getting offended by South Park since it came out. Like let’s go back to Marvin the Starvin’ - it’s a pretty shitty and lazy depiction of Ethiopia, and the entire joke of the episode is “Sally Struthers is fat.” Is there anything in that episode that isn’t “slapstick, fart jokes and mild pop culture references”? The episode after that was Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo! You better believe people were offended by talking shit on TV!

          Sure, they used to be able to get away with showing Muhammad on the show (the concerns there are more ahem, macro aggressions). But I don’t see anything in modern South Park that really seems to indicate that they are pulling their punches (other than it’s just not as good, barring the games which are pretty great)

          I’d also quibble with the characterization that they “take shots at everything” - Matt and Trey’s politics are obvious when you watch the show. You don’t find things in South Park offensive, because you likely share their ideology. I can say as a young trans person watching “Eek! A Penis!” for the first time was a pretty unpleasant experience.

        • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, and when that became the prevailing sentiment, they ripped that apart, too, with ‘PC Principal’. They just take the current issues and poke holes, because there are always holes and our polarised society tends not to appreciate that.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    This throwaway joke has more emotional resonance now that we’ve seen how Homer and Barney were friends growing up.

  • Microw@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think this was considered to be that progressive back then. Identity politics wasnt such a big thing at that point, individual actions weren’t that politicized.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      What? As an example of how non progressive the country was, even California, passed a direct democracy amendment banning gay marriage in 2008 and things were not more progressive in the 90’s. There’s a big difference than what left wing writers were putting in 90’s TV than where politics generally were. If it feels like things went backwards it’s because mass media became supplemented with social media where complete idiots can take over the narrative.

    • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Are you kidding me?

      Next are you gonna tell me the radicalization that is happening is a both sides thing where people fighting for trans rights and progressive policies like universal healthcare and people throwing a tantrum about what books people are reading or what women can do with their fucking eggs just happen to be on different teams and are part of the same problem?

      Your narrative of what went wrong, at least in the US, stopped being cute-in-a-naive-way very abruptly on January 6th.

      The difference between then and now is that rightwing fascism became scarier and more openly aggressive. Just because people are more vocal about the violence of rightwing fascism doesn’t make it new.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is considered too progressive back then.

      'Member “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which Bill Clinton have ordered?