
How ‘South Park’ Perfectly Captures Our Era of Outrage - douche
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/arts/television/south-park-sketches-grander-satire-themes.html
======
minimaxir
> "South Park" used to be so anti-continuity - its episodes are often written
> days before airing

That last fact needs extra emphasis. The multi-month lead time needed for
every other scripted show on Television means that South Park is the _only_
show that can pull Ripped-From-the-Headlines commentary without things being
dated by the time the episode airs. (Law and Order: SVU is show that is guilty
of this to a hilarious degree)

~~~
click170
Well, with the exception of shows like The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, and
the like but I agree overall.

~~~
minimaxir
That's why I clarified "scripted." (Or "procedural" would be the more
technically correct term.)

~~~
jonnathanson
I think "scripted" is the right word in this case.

"Procedural" refers to a specific type of scripted television, typically but
not always a legal, medical, or law-enforcement drama. A procedural show
follows the same format every episode: a mystery of some kind is introduced
(medical, crime, or what have you), and the characters go through the
procedures of solving the mystery. Law & Order: SVU can be described as a
procedural; South Park cannot, unless you're using a very very loose
definition of the term.

If you're looking at this in terms of nested sets or categories:

\- Scripted vs. Nonscripted

\- Comedy vs. Drama (usually also means half-hour vs. hour)

\- Episodic (every episode is self-contained) vs. Serialized (the show follows
an overall, evolving storyline that builds each episode)

\- Subgenre

So a show like L&O: SVU would be a scripted, one-hour drama in the crime
procedural subgenre. (We could also describe the show as episodic, but given
that all procedurals are episodic, this would be redundant.)

South Park is a scripted, half-hour comedy in the animation subgenre that
typically follows an episodic format, with occasional serialized story arcs
spanning multiple episodes (and in the case of this season, the whole season).

------
posnet
I don't understand how people are able to put so much emotional energy into
their views on South Park.

It's satire, if you don't enjoy watching it.

Then don't.

If you are truly worried about peoples views being strongly influenced by the
content of South Park, then your opinion of peoples intelligence is far less
than mine. It's for entertainment, and the viewer ship knows this.

~~~
tedks
>It's for entertainment, and the viewer ship knows this.

That's not true at all.

Edit: I'll expand on this since it's getting downvoted.

Most Americans have _absolutely no idea_ what "satire" is -- so they can't
"know that South Park is satire". I think they know south park is funny, but
in the same way a bully making fun of a nerd is funny: the bully is hilarious
_because_ the nerd is pathetic. South Park is funny _because_ "social justice
warriors"/Al Gore's insistence that climate change is an urgent problem/gun
control advocates are wrong in their position.

The cool thing in millenial culture is to not care about anything. Having a
cause of any kind makes you an SJW or a nutjob and that isn't cool. Liking
what you do for a living makes you a nerd and that isn't cool. Being genuinely
in love with your partner makes you whipped and that isn't cool. The only
thing people aren't chill about is the need to be chill. All the time.

South Park captures this very well, I think. Caring about anything, having any
hobby, South Park shoots it all down. It even shoots down itself -- notice how
after every moving monologue from Stan or Kyle about how we all just need to
stop caring about something, we get a nice comic relief of Cartman calling
whoever just poured their heart out a faggot and does something vulgar? We
can't even care about not caring.

Because of this, South Park was pretty regularly referred to as a moral and
ethical guide by most of the friends I made in college. Who, like most people,
have no idea what sarcasm even is (it isn't cool to pay attention in AP lit,
you just do it for the grade and move on).

(I would even say that South Park isn't sarcastic or satirical and is instead
flatly advocating utter nihilism. This seems to fit with the creator's styles
and I think is a major contributor towards this cultural impulse towards
nihilism. But that's another comment.)

~~~
remarkEon
-> The cool thing in millenial culture is to not care about anything.

It seems to be quite the opposite. Every week I'm let know what it is I'm
supposed to be outraged about.

-> I would even say that South Park isn't sarcastic or satirical and is instead flatly advocating utter nihilism.

It would seem, if anything, South Park just tries to round things out to free
speech. You can call that nihilism, I guess, in a sort of perfunctory way.

~~~
MCRed
->Every week I'm let know what it is I'm supposed to be outraged about.

I call this the "Five minutes of hate". If you don't get that reference, read
1984 by George Orwell. I think you'll find it very illuminating.

One week, it was Chik-fil-a and how we should hate them because their CEO gave
money to a cause I disagree with, the next it's some baker in oregon who dared
to refuse to do a wedding cake for a gay couple. (I'm queer, I believe in gay
marriage, but just because you have the right to marry doesn't mean you have
the right to make some business sell you something.)

There's a lot of other stuff from 1984 that have become real-

The memory hole-- how everyone forgets the past (and the media-- our big
shouting head-- pretends like it doesn't exist.)

Double-Speak is Double-plus real too. Etc.

~~~
jinushaun
Oh. My. God. You're right! Social media is our version of the Two Minutes
Hate. I've been complaining about this for years! Can't believe I never made
that connection.

------
make3
The latest episodes on ads with a wink (does she know she's an ad vs does she
know she's a replicant) at Blade Runner (which is seen as the first SciFi to
forecast the importance of ads in the future) fairly accurately depicted how
hard I feel it is to not be distracted on the Internet these days, as well as
discussing the really disturbing trend of the "sponsored content" in text
content medias.

~~~
bennesvig
It also parodied Ex Machina.

------
en4bz
Not really sure why South Park is getting so much praise these days. Very
little has changed from the previous seasons in terms of its outrageousness
and the things it satirizes.

I think the creators are just doing what they usually do which is take
advantage of a controversial topic and satirize it. I guess it just so happens
that more people care about the topic at hand (political correctness) and
empathize with it.

~~~
gizmo686
This also is, to my recollection, the first time that they took one topic and
went with it for a whole season. That is not to say that they deliberately
singled this topic out for more attention; rather, it seems to be following a
trend that they started last season where it felt like they experimented with
more season long connections.

~~~
en4bz
Not really though, last year they had Randy play Lorde for the whole season.
And they've been doing 2-3 episode stories for a while. Even in this season
the Yelp episode was off topic from the main plot.

~~~
remarkEon
-> Even in this season the Yelp episode was off topic from the main plot.

Was it, though? It seemed like the the chiding of Yelpers directly ties in to
how people take their (perhaps authoritarian) views and opinions on things as
sacrosanct and beyond reproach. In the same way that the PC Bros feel they're
obligated to check everyone's privilege, the Yelpers felt like, if they
weren't reviewing, no one would know anything about eating.

------
sandworm101
From the OP >>> But in a way, its project and theirs are the same: to deal
with tensions by prescribing more conversation, even if it’s uncomfortable,
not less.

Why do reviewers always assume that because a show uses controversial content
that it must have some sort of sociological agenda? They are making a show
that is funny so that people watch and they can profit. The author strikes me
as the sort of person who would describe Howard Stern as a troubled artist,
rather than a talented entertainer. Some people are out there just to make
people laugh and bring home a few bucks while doing so.

------
minikites
From the article:

> But in a way, its project and theirs are the same: to deal with tensions by
> prescribing more conversation, even if it’s uncomfortable, not less.

Are you kidding me? The show does the exact opposite if you've seen more than
a handful of episodes. This comment summarizes the show much better than this
article:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3tsd5o/south_p...](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3tsd5o/south_park_is_written_by_reddit/cx8xc4o)

> Uncritical, detached acceptance of the status quo is the only morally
> upright posture, and those who draw a distinction between is and ought are
> all smug bullies, outlandish freaks, and/or closed-minded zealots.

> It's a show that teaches its audience to become lazy and self-satisfied,
> that praises them for being uncritically accepting of their own biases, and
> that provides them with an endless buffet of thought-terminating cliches
> suitable for shutting down all manner of challenges to their comfort zones.

Or in video form:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TttI60-mjQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TttI60-mjQ)

~~~
forgottenpass
> /r/circlebroke/ link

r/circlebroke is ego defense dressed up as analysis.

"apathetic-libertarian" is an interpretation for people that identify so
strongly with their own political positions, that they can no longer laugh at
themselves. A lazy categorization that allows them to dismiss thoughts the
show might otherwise spark.

South Park's political criticism is often more about the unreasonable ways
people act than their political goals. You can behave like a shithead and take
yourself too seriously even in the service of an incredibly laudable goal. But
that idea doesn't always play in a "with us or against us" mindset.

South Park has middle fingers up in all directions. That's just skeptical and
contrarian, not apathetic. Unless you're already primed to choose apathy over
having a think. Or will still choose apathy over something you can't believe
in 110%. And the "libertarianism" of the show is largely just an anti-
authoritarian "fuck off." But because you can tie it to that name, people with
nothing smarter to say can just use guilt by association and tie it to
everything crazy that also happens under that name.

------
asquabventured
South Park IS the American dream. If you don't like it, you can suck my fat
taint.

------
iLoch
This thread won't end well.

~~~
ps4fanboy
Kind of reinforces his point.

~~~
iLoch
Outrage is a choice, and it isn't one made by those who are willing to have an
adult discussion about a topic.

I think MLK's strategy is the absolute gold standard for promoting intelligent
discussion around social issues. Outrage won't solve anything, other than to
silence dissent. And what a terrible world that would be to live in.

~~~
bro-stick
Couldn't that be the heart of why Seinfeld doesn't play university campuses
anymore and Bill Mahar's critique of us millennials as pampered p%ssies? An
inability to hear differing viewpoints without them being shouted down and
Yale Halloween costume girl screaming at guy she helped elect? It cannot be a
legitimate, honest academic environment when the groupthink, thoughpolice are
in charge, or when students are merely customers to appease at every moment...
respectful debate and challenging of views, assumptions and ethical rationale
gets lost.

Doesn't it seem currently (as also dramatized by SP) to be a war of emotional
extortion of whom can most, disproportionately bully others with their
micropain and force the rest of us to change our language every other week and
walk on eggshells? (Sure, real sensitivity to prevent actual offense; and
address actual bullying.)

~~~
MCRed
"of whom can most, disproportionately bully others with their micro pain"

That reminds me a great deal of the situation at the "Twentieth Century Motor
Corporation" in Atlas Shrugged, when the workers were paid according to their
need- they focused on needing more.

------
danharaj
South Park is a weekly morality play espousing the virtues of a nihilistic
"libertarianism"* that appeals to the kind of person who wants to be reassured
that not caring about other human beings is laudable behavior.

* I don't like libertarianism and have been known to vigorously dissent with its principles, but even I wouldn't stoop so low as to consider South Park a reflection of the views of a sincere and thoughtful libertarian.

~~~
cpursley
I'm truly sorry that you think libertarian philosophy means not caring for
your fellow human. The very reason I reject the "we'll stomp you in the throat
until you comply" authoritarian approaches of the left/right is _precisely_
because I care about others.

~~~
vacri
Libertarianism has a lot of 'freedom!' rhetoric, but absolutely nothing in it
is community-building. Any care for fellow humans in libertarianism (though I
have yet to see a libertarian argue for community over individuality in
_anything_ ) comes a distant second to "my stuff is MY stuff".

Libertarianism is a philosophy that rewards the wealthy and those with in-
demand skills. It very much isn't a philosophy about caring for fellow humans
in any way but lip service.

~~~
derefr
A libertarian must necessarily believe, I think, that markets work to enable
technological progress, and that technological progress "lifts all boats"
(with a much stronger effect-size than that of direct economic stimulus.)

Being a libertarian and _not_ believing these things sounds like a very
sociopathic mindset, I agree. If you think "turning the economic crank as fast
as possible" _won 't_ eventually invent us all flying cars and diseaseless
super-bodies and free food-dispensers (and a pony!), then it's pretty obvious
that redistributing wealth is the "right thing to do."

But if you _do_ believe that, then you have to measure the ROI of each dollar
spent investing in the economy (and thus in turning the technological crank)
vs. direct redistributive charity, as a means of helping the people on the
bottom. Personally, I don't think it's clear which direction has higher ROI.

~~~
MCRed
Part of the philosophy of libertarianism is the idea that if you allow people
to cooperate (eg: build a community) they will advance faster... and looking
at what happened in China and India when those countries legalized capitalism,
the libertarians have a good point.

This is, of course, an economic perspective, but the history of economics
generally agrees with them.

~~~
vacri
Capitalism is not a binary state. Chinese capitalism is not American
capitalism is not Western European capitalism.

Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for
shades of gray. Everything is an absolute, a binary; either something is or
something isn't, but the real world doesn't work that way. Some capitalism is
good. Unfettered capitalism is not - the libertarian cry of "well if someone
wrongs you, then sue them for damages in court" is all but useless. You may
not even know which chemical company was poisoning the air you have been
breathing for 10 years that caused your illness, but libertarians wouldn't
restrict the company's actions ahead of time; apparently a monetary settlement
(that of course an individual will be able to force a large company into
settling in courts...) is always an appropriate solution.

Hell, one libertarian I was talking to was suggesting _privatising_ courts,
and saying that the courts would be paid on performance. Somehow he thought
that would mean the courts would be fair, rather than heavily biased to the
private entity providing the paycheck.

So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would
be actions performed well after the fact. We've seen what happens when profit
motives are unfettered, and it's not pretty.

~~~
burntsushi
> So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would
> be actions performed well after the fact.

Why is that a problem specific to capitalism? What system of justice prevents
everything up front? As long as justice is somewhat predictable, others can
plan based on what will happen to them.

For example, we are currently in a system where the only restriction on murder
is an action performed well after the fact (e.g., prison).

> Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for
> shades of gray.

That's not how I see it. Markets are one big shade of gray. There's nothing
absolute about them at all.

~~~
vacri
> _Why is that a problem specific to capitalism?_

Libertarians argue against regulations, which are restrictions in place ahead
of time. I find it disturbing that you are oblivious to that, even though
you're responding to a comment which mentions air quality as an issue. As it
stands, government regulations limit air pollution. Libertarians would remove
those regulations and move the onus onto individuals to prove their cases in
court.

> _What system of justice prevents everything up front?_

Where did I say 'everything'? This is exactly what I mean by libertarianism
has no shades of gray.

> _Markets are one big shade of gray._

'Unpredictability' is not the gray we're talking about here.

~~~
bmelton
> Libertarians argue against regulations

Every party has flaws. Every philosophy that derives from first principles has
flaws. If there's a flaw in libertarianism, it's that it doesn't recognize
externalities well.

That it infuriates you is problematic. I bounce all over the spectrum on what
I believe, and I frequent the DMV voter registration guy to change parties
enough that he knows me by name. That said, no matter how much you love any
particular philosophy, it can't always hold to be the rightest thing ever.

The American left thinks that it's too burdensome to demand an ID to exercise
the right to vote, which isn't even enumerated in the constitution, but think
that in-depth background checks are perfectly acceptable to purchase a
firearm. The American right feels exactly the opposite. A true civil
libertarian believes that an ID infringes on both, and would reject
registration hurdles for both.

 _In scenarios like this_ I believe that libertarians hold the most
enlightened view, which is why I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian
for convenience, depending on the conversation.

> libertarianism has no shades of gray.

On this I disagree vehemently. There are many, many shades of gray within
libertarianism. Yes, there are absolutists in every camp, and yes, as with
every other camp, they tend to be vocal, but there's no singular libertarian
rulebook that everybody follows. There's even a Wiki article on their
quibbles:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism)

Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-
aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. As most
penalties eventually result in force (not paying taxes results in jail), it
tends to _seem_ absolutist, but not all libertarians are propertarians, nor
are they universally opposed to business obligations (like carbon offsets and
the like).

~~~
vacri
> _Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the
> non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used._

Which is one of the most nonsensical things about libertarianism - that any
time authority want you do to something, it's referred to as 'violence'. It's
'violence' because if you keep refusing to comply, then at the end of a long
chain of events, eventually an authorised officer will start to manhandle you.
Hence even the smallest thing becomes 'violence'.

Yet...

Libertarianism offers "the courts" as the solution to pretty much all
disputes. What happens when someone doesn't comply with court rulings? The
court finds that your activities have injured your neighbour and you must give
remuneration. You flip off both the court and the neighbour. What happens now?
Libertarianism has quite a few of these blind spots.

Again, you don't have to be a _Libertarian_ to be for _civil liberties_.

~~~
burntsushi
> What happens when someone doesn't comply with court rulings?

Again, that problem is not specific to libertarianism. Every socioeconomic
system must address it, and none of the solutions are pretty. In our current
world, a person who ignores a court's ruling is physically forced to comply. I
don't see any particular reason why something similar couldn't work in a more
libertarian world.

