Please explain like I'm five. What's the social status of SP in the USA? E.g. what do Chomsky, Obama, Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Fox news think about it? How come there are no rage firings because of it?
South Park has been around for so long, and has gone after so many things, its probable they've tackled several issues in a way that really resonates with you, and makes you laugh at the same time. And in many cases, they've paid a cost that others would be unwilling to bear in doing so.
This China thing is a current example. The NBA is cravenly grovelling to the CPC, and the SP creators are taking a proverbial dump on the lawns of the CPC and the NBA and Hollywood self-censors, while giving zero-fucks. Its great. Its inspiring. Another was when Isaac Hayes (actor who voiced Chef, and a Scientologist) quit when they did their Scientology episode (and it was such a brilliant episode, and at a time when Scientology was a bit of a sacred cow in Hollywood). Isaac had no problem when SP went (and continues to go) after Christianity.
Chances are, even if they really piss you off at some point, there have been other times when they've made you cheer and laugh.
Their portrayal of Scientology got Chef to quit. And the chickenshits at Comedy Central will never again air the episodes featuring Mohammed. But otherwise I don't think anyone cares all that much.
Im thinking this is a non native language issue and no harm was intended but the wording of "sub optimal coloured men" would probably be interpreted as offensive by some and actually just doesn't totally make sense.
Maybe "marginalized" may be closer to the word you were looking for?
> Most people recognize SP as libertarian in general orientation
While I believe Matt & Trey are generally libertarian-leaning I've never detected the slightest bleed-through of libertarian/neoliberal idealism in the show itself.
I've not really watched the show regularly in years, maybe that's changed. I do know that they initially discussed the libertarianism at a time when it was the hip above-it-all precursor to modern both-sides-do-itism that was regularly adopted without much deep reverence to actual libertarianism.
You’re mistaking “both sides” with the ability and willingness to skewer anyone. Take a step back and it’s easy to see politics across the spectrum is ripe for satire.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. The "both sides" approach allows you to use that as evidence of neutrality.
I've never seen South Park as neutral. Its critique of American liberalism is surface level, its critique of American conservatism (whatever that means these days) was fundamental and ideological.
Moreover, I never saw the satire as much more than superficial. Which is fine, I always thought it funny but neither especially acerbic nor intellectual. I think leaning on that "neutral", above-it-all standpoint gave the show some credit that was somewhat undeserved.
Like editorial cartoons have done for over a century, changing the context lets the viewer observe whether their surface beliefs are consistent with their intuitions and principles.
I tend to find the degree of depth in South Park is entirely a function of whether you agree with their editorial position and/or whether you've already engaged with that line of thinking elsewhere. (And like every TV show ever, some episodes are good, some are stinkers.)
Why? Because they'll fuck you up? How exactly? Im not asking about presidents' personalities, what would their political friends think? To put it another way, who watches SP, and is it some marginal minority?
Streisand effect. If you shrug it off, only SP regular viewers will know about the portrayal; if you react, everyone knows both that portrayal and that you whined about it like a little baby.
Depends on age, mostly: older people on all sides of the spectrum find SP crass. Younger people often think it's funny. You can find overwrought editorials about how SP is problematic/written by cucks, as it offends people on both sides on occasion.
I wouldn't say it's marginal, since everyone's at least heard of it. My general impression is that it tends to be watched by young-to-middle age college educated but middle class people, but you'd have to ask the studio to get a solid demographic breakdown.
Lot's of people watch it. It's counterproductive because no one gives a f if you're mad about it or what your friends will think. Being a 'public figure' generally means you're considered fair game.
I guess this is as good a time as ever to not take freedom of speech for granted, that this concept is seemingly so hard to understand wherever you're from.
South Park was pretty nice to Obama overall and he had a decent ability to take a joke so I'm guessing he liked it.
I assure you Trump does not like South Park.
But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what they think. There would be huge outrage if a President tried to silence a satirical show. They wouldn't be able to get away with it.
I understand that any American president is not like Putin. However, you (as a nation) have a history of character murdering, firing for politically incorrect statements etc.
You might end up fired or losing a contract, but you’re not going to end up in jail. In South Park’s case, there’s a very slim chance that the creators will lose their contracts—they’ve been doing this for a long time.
But what do they feel? What Trump and Obama feel about SP? For example, in Russia everybody would (hypothetically) laugh their asses out, but the creators would be promptly sued, because reasons, and won't proceed.
There’s nothing they could reasonably be sued for here. Parody, satire, and political commentary are largely protected. Our TV programming regularly criticizes and ridicules our own country’s politicians.
This article discusses a very interesting, and surprising, study on political correctness. [1]
The paper found that Americans' views could be typified into three major groups. About 25% are traditional or devoted conservatives, 8% are progressive activists, and the other 67% are an "exhausted majority." The exhausted majority was typified as Americans who don't belong to either extreme, and "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation."
And most of everybody had a disdain for political correctness that transcends politics, race, and even age. The following think political correctness is a problem in the country:
- 80% of the general population
- 74% of those aged 24-29
- 79% of those under age 24
- 75% of blacks
- 79% of whites
- 82% of Asians
- 87% of Hispanics
- 88% of American Indians
There's a reasonable argument that perhaps people don't agree on what "political correctness" means, and indeed the poll part of the study did not define it for participants. However, the study engaged in various focus groups as well as individual interviews and found that individuals were "concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them."
The reason this is important is that a lot of the political correctness stuff is carried out in domains that are in no way, shape, or form representative of the general population of America. This [2] poll from Pew lays out social media usage in the US. Twitter is a good, and surprising example. Only 22% of Americans use Twitter. And of those that do, 58% use it less often than once per day. Yet I think it goes without saying that our 8% from above are nearly all on Twitter and using it constantly. This results in an extremely misleading image of American society in general if you go in with the assumption that platforms like Twitter are even vaguely representative.
The point of this is that cancel culture not American culture. It's something propagated by a vocal minority on deeply unrepresentative platforms. By contrast South Park has been an American institution for more than two decades. And it continues to draw millions of viewers per episode. Cancel culture largely targets individuals who are unable to defend themselves or those for whom the "progressive activist" group makes up a significant share of their potential influence. For South Park, this couldn't be further from the case.
It’s a TV show that was shocking and taboo-breaking when it was new and has now largely worn out its welcome. Nobody really talks about it the way they chew over the Simpsons, it’s just sort of... there.
