Talk:The Death Camp of Tolerance

Time Issues
The episode states that "Mr. Garrison came out 2 years ago". Though its true that the episode did premiere 2 years after "4th Grade", its funny how the children are actually still in Fourth Grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AznWarlord (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

science
I don't like this bit: "Also, Mr. Garrison relates Newton's law of motion to the endothermic reaction of Lemmiwinks gerbilling, two concepts that are completely unrelated in the scientific field as one is related to chemistry and the other physics."

These concepts are intrinsically related, as temperature (endoTHERMic) is a product of the kinetic energy of molecules. Not that i really care, it is, after all, just a south park article. 219.90.160.6 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Parodies
I'm a big fan of parodies, Weird Al especially, but I think South Park just went overboard in my book, that is way to extreme to be considered funny. I have been to the Museum of Tolerance, and I am offened by the name of this episode. This is (to me) totally unacceptable to be aired on public television. User:ilikerad

Then it is a good job it is not up to you! This is a fantastic episode, showing how people 'choose' what they wish to be tolerant/intolerant against, and very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.83.126 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... Best SP episode ever ! I particularly appreciated when Mr Garrison reminded that "tolerance" has never meant "acceptance". You can "put up" with other people's life choices without approving them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch1981 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

People like ilikerad will be the death of humor. Political correctness and "Death Camp of Tolerance" like faculty are all over the place in the USA, in the entertainment industry and our public schools. This user totally proved the Parker's point, but he's too stupid to understand it.67.1.75.242 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Butters and Tweek
In the trivia section it says:
 * While neither Butters nor Tweek were with the boys in the previous two episodes, they both go with Stan, Kyle and Cartman to the museum.

In fact, both boys were in the previous episode (The Return of the Lord of the Rings to the Two Towers) with Butters appearing as Gollum, and Tweak was dressed as a fictional character with a coffee can strapped to his head as a helmet. Was this meant that this is the first time that Butters and Tweek appeared together with the regular three, without the rest of the class present?--Cory Kohn 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Trivia problem

 * The fact that a smoker was taunted after the end of the Tolerance Muesum tour and how no one paid no attenton to Chef or Butters in regards to Lemmiwinks also shows how hypocritical political correctness can be to itself. The camp master's comments on how "Intolerance will not be tolerated."

WHAT does this mean?? Someone, preferably the writer, needs to fix this up.--Cory Kohn 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several examples of hypocrisy by the pro-tolerance people, but in this paragraph i only see two.
 * They do not mind intolerance when it is against something they don't believe in; in this case against the smoker. These people are quick to defend those of different races, homosexuals, etc, but they rarely defend smokers. I believe Matt and Trey (non-smokers) found this hypocritical.
 * The camp master's comment: The sentence itself is contradictory and in practice it is hypocritical. At least i believe that is how Matt and Trey feet. Certain actions (smoking) will offend others. That is their right; let them be offended. You cannot mandate or insist that everyone tolerates everything. Becoming offended the kids were offended by the Lemmiwinks incident is quite hypocritical; it is intolerant of the kids' right to be upset in order to be tolerant of Mr Garrison's sexuality.
 * The Chef and Butters detail was not really hypocrisy as i see it. Unless they were ignored in an intolerant manner, that is.
 * Perhaps the trivia could list the smoker incident and that quote, but it might take a section to describe the moral aspects of the episode. --Kevin L&#39;Huillier 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The examples of Chef and the smoker outside the museum are not really examples of hypocracy (although the reaction to the smoker is closer to it) so much as irony. It's ironic that Chef would be the one to report Garrison for outrageous behavior only to be told that he's the one that has to be punished, in the form of 'tolerance camp', because the audience has seen the actions of Garrison and knows that Chef is right in reporting him. -unsigned

Those that claim to be pro-tolerance usually show a bias toward what they perceive as underdogs or historically persecuted groups. They'll claim hate speech against certain groups is like an atrocity, but then they'll say nothing when other groups are vilified, which is all "hate speech" is, an attempt to incite hatred and ultimately violence against a certain group. So this creates another double standard in the way people deal with race relations in modern America. Another example is with religion, and on the very show whose page we're having this discussion on. They claim that they make fun of all religions, and many people take that to mean that they "criticize". Jews have been made fun of, but never criticized. Christianity has been criticized, dare I say vilified, on several occasions. Before anyone jumps on this and claims I have a bias, I'm an agnostic who was raised by atheists. No, it's not the same as being raised by wolves, but thanks anyway for your concern. 67.1.75.242 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lemmiwinks lyrics
I think this section could use the Lemmiwinks lyrics. --Ashmole 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the Leminwinks song being similar to the Hobit movie from the 70's...."The most wonderful adventure" --Jme02067 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The sound of the Lemiwinks song is the same as the one in the animated Hobbit movie, and I've never heard that sort of music anywhere else. 71.246.76.223 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jethro Tull... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlucht714 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode No.?
Why, in the 1st paragraph does it say it is the 614th episode, whereas underneath the picture it says it is the 93rd? Please tell me if I'm being terrifically stupid with this one, but it just occurred to me now. Thanks, Ninington 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read 614 as Season 6, episode 14, rather than six hundred and fourteen. --125.239.47.95 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
I have redirected this episode because it was comprised mainly of plot, and had little to no outside information on the episode. The workers who sculpted the article's efforts were not in vain, though. The episode's contents now exist identically in South Park Wiki. Just so you know. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncited material
Cite please; Alastairward (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The tolerance camp sequences are presented in very similar style to Schindler's List, including being shot in black-and-white.
 * The scenes where Lemmiwinks is trying to escape from Mr. Slave include parodies of songs from The Hobbit animated movie, including the title song.
 * Lemmiwinks and the animal spirits are also parodies of the Redwall series
 * The entire article is uncited. Citing the episode and synthesizing an article from it is original research.--Asher196 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed material again. A primary source and a blog are not WP:RS--Asher196 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with adding facts that creators themselves have said are true. From the Wikipedia policy on primary sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." I don't think the creators directly claiming that they were parodying The Hobbit requires much interpretation, analysis, or specialized knowledge. Brc2000 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)