South Park is an animated TV series on Comedy Central that has the deceiving image of a cartoon made for children. However, its contents are directed towards teenagers and adults due to its highly sensitive content. South Park offends and insults things ranging from artists, political figures to fads and current world events. South park is a parody that serves the purpose to point out the flaws in society. Explicitly, South Park is a vulgar, random show that is aimed for mature audience. But implicitly, South Park digs deeper into the major flaws of society. South Park could be categorized as the same as shows like Family Guy. However, unlike Family Guy, South Park gets right up and personal to its viewers. It crawls under peoples skins and actually impacts the viewers. South Park shows no limits in the content it shows publicly. When South Park insults and creates jokes about one religion they would include every other religion known to man. An example of this would be South Park’s group of deities called the “Super Best Friends”, it combines every god that is in the different religions that South Park makes fun of. The Super Best Friends consist of Jesus, Muhammad, Budha, Moses, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Laozi, & Sea Man which contradicts the belief in all of the religions because the separate religions disapproves of the existence of the other members. This is only one of many religiously offending jokes that South Park provides its viewers. South Park presents serious topics that would offend the majority of humans in the world but softens the offense with comic relief which is what gains its viewers.

South park is not known to be liked by conservative people and parents. Parents generally would disapprove of their kids viewing such content because of its vulgarity and so called “potty humor”. There is a possibility that some of the fans of South Parks are simple minded and only see the show explicitly, but once the time is taken to realize what Matt & Trey Parker are saying in their show, it would make perfect sense in comparison to real life. South Park is an unbiased show. I find it funny even though it may offend me and make fun of my race or religion. But I can laugh at myself with the show. South Park is not for people who are easily offended by the jokes on controversial subjects that other shows do not have the guts to show.

As I was growing up I was exposed to people, mainly music artists, who had tattoos. I remember as a teenager I came up to my parents and asked if I could have a tattoo, the results were disappointing as expected by conservative Asian parents. From that day on this question rises, “why do most people frown upon and discriminate people who have tattoos?”.

According to anthropology, piercings and tattoos are evidence of evolution, it shows sophistication and advance in technology (by being able to sanitize the tools used to pierce and tattoo). Due to this fact, I am left wondering why people frown upon people who have tattoos or are reluctant in getting tattoos. If tattoos are forms of evolution and sophistication shouldn’t it still be in the 21st century? People who have visible tattoos are often passed over for jobs because there has been a generalization of people with tattoos being rednecks, violent, reckless and bad. I do not have an answer for these questions but I have a theory of why this is how things are. Perhaps, because humans are generally prejudice people, they get intimidated by them. To have a tattoo means that the person have gone through needle-like pain for an hour or more.

Tattoos have been looked down upon for too long. People need to realize that getting a tattoo costs a good sum of money unless they personally know a tattoo artist. I believe that people should find that people who have tattoos are more capable because of the amount of money that is needed to have one. Even though tattoos are generally on people who are violent there has been an increase of people with tattoos and these people range from middle class working people to famous actors and athletes. I believe that the prejudice on tattoos is decreasing as more and more people have them. Because of this, the future might be more accepting of people with tattoos, perhaps visible tattoos could someday be common in the workplace. Tattoos should not determine who a person is, rather, it should be accessible free information about the person.

Privacy has been more of an issue the longer social networks exist. Gradually, privacy has decreased through the years through social networks. Facebook has over 680 million users that are active monthly as of December 31, 2012. These users all have to register and create a profile in order to join Facebook. During the process of being a part of Facebook, users must fill in personal information and agree to the terms and conditions of the privacy settings. Privacy is defined as the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs. Generally, a user’s profile would have their full name, email, date of birth, general location and places they have worked or studied in. Before social networks such as Facebook, in order to know or have access to this information was if an actual real life confrontation would have been made directly in some way with the other person.

Even though having social networks may have its negative aspects to it there are plenty of perks. Having Facebook accounts can be good and bad at the same time. For example, one negative aspect of being a part of social networks is that users who are registered can suffer from being stalked or have their identities stolen and recreated. A user’s information and profile on any social network can be searched through Google proving that users’ profiles are quite accessible even by people who are not registered in the social network. However, being able to access profiles are not always negative. Gaining information for personal gain or gaining information about a possible future employee are a few examples of how having accessible personal information can be perks.

Every user can easily privatize their information, photos, etc. through the proper and careful use of the privacy settings that are available. I personally believe that the decrease of privacy is a good thing. Privacy should become less and less available because then people would try harder to lessen the embarrassing or shameful things that they do. The decrease of privacy will encourage better behavior simply because it will cause people to be more careful (at least online).

Ever since Bruce Lee’s movie “Enter The Dragon” was released posthumously all over the world, the meaning of hegemonic masculinity shifted due to the martial artist’s influence. Bruce Lee’s last movie was released in 1973, it was the movie that brought Bruce Lee’s name and talent throughout the world. The view on hegemonic masculinity slightly shifted from just being physically muscular. Bruce Lee was the image of masculinity. He did not exactly fit into the category of being a hegemonic male, he was not large in muscle mass nor was he very tall among other people. However, in his movies he was able to beat up numerous people all because of his skills and ability in martial arts. People idolized him and wanted to learn martial arts, men who wanted to be hegemonic had to learn how to use martial arts, not just work out and gain muscle.

His final movie, “Enter The Dragon”, topped American charts and was famous among other races besides white people. Bruce Lee not only encouraged martial arts and influence hegemonic males to learn martial arts, he also strengthened and reinforced the idea that hegemonic males was a do-er. In his films Bruce Lee did act and have dialogue, but the focus of the films was the action and the fighting scenes that took place. The majority of fights made a point on how men solve problems with their fist, which not only worked but also seemed to be the best way to solve problems.

Due to the influence of his movies the idea that if a man can’t fight or defend himself, they are not considered to be masculine. Even I personally have this ideology printed in my brain. The reason why being able to fight or defend oneself is important in being seen as masculine is because when a person is beaten by another they are labeled the loser. Someone who is labeled a loser from a fight will be seen as the physically weaker person. Hegemonic males are never seen as a weaker person.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!