
Robin Williams, an acid trip, and moral panic: “Blame Canada” at the Oscars - AndrewBissell
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2020/6/24/21301245/south-park-2000-oscars-blame-canada-controversy
======
ksdale
"Basically, for every stance they’ve gotten right—like this past season when
they refused to back down to China—there’s another one that’s aged like a bowl
of Cheesy Poofs left out in the rain."

It's never felt to me like South Park was trying to be right about anything. I
think of them more as a court jester, they play a role where they mock
everything, all the time. The mocking is the point. Getting it right is
irrelevant (my take, anyway).

When you mock everything, though, you will naturally convince a lot of people
that everything is equally worth mocking (which may necessitate, say,
readdressing climate change).

~~~
namdnay
Somebody far more eloquent than I am summarized the problem with this
attitude:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3tsd5o/comment...](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3tsd5o/comment/cx8xc4o)

By poking fun at everyone who tries to do anything, you end up defending the
status quo

~~~
Shoreleave
They do not poke fun at everyone who tries to do anything. They poke fun at
self-important people who have latched onto progressive ideologies once they
can gain something from it. They poke fun at crowd madness. They poke fun at
hypocrites. The comment was a response to the perfect case in point: Caitlyn
Jenner. The public face of trans women and 'Woman of the year', who didn't
even believe in gay marriage.

The average South Park episode has Cartman representing the extreme of some
issue, and the issue is mocked. But there will also be a foil, possibly
Butters or Stan, who represents the core of the issue, ignoring the hyperbole
surrounding it. This character is the one who succeeds.

~~~
ryandrake
They poke fun at people who wrap their entire identity up in those activities
or causes. Plenty of SP characters do things and have opinions and don't get
ridiculed. It's the ones who take that activity and those causes _so seriously
and extremely_ that they become personal embodiments of them: Those characters
get roasted.

~~~
namdnay
> It's the ones who take that activity and those causes so seriously and
> extremely that they become personal embodiments of them

Is that really an issue? Looking at our democracies, is the real issue that
people take their causes seriously and extremely? Or is the issue the cynical
apathy that opposes that?

History is full of pompous self-important people who took their causes very
seriously indeed, and advanced humanity through that dedication.

~~~
pas
The problem seems to be that people are very bad at what the stoics
prescribed: do what you can and accept the rest.

I mean there's a very steep diminishing returns curve for most kinds of
activism. You can't protest 0-24, because eventually you will run out of food,
water, money, etc. Of course social networks and the constant breaking news
media pours napalm on everything continuously, just because. (And yes, Trump
is going to be Trump every day, just as China will be run by a paranoid
oppressive power-hungry regime for the foreseeable future.)

And this kind of overdoing things, not backing down, not compromising, not
accepting incremental change even if it costs people a lot what seems to be
the problem. (Eg. see how some people unironically think that a big collapse
is an acceptable way to get to whatever next glorious stage the world will get
to. See also how most far-anything ideologies all operate as very simple
recipes and try to derive "solutions" \- or maybe they are better called
proposals - for every problem they see. And this ideological purism is what SP
seems to ridicule with contrived situations, that are allegorical - usually to
an almost direct correspondence - to the complexities of reality. )

------
grawprog
[https://youtu.be/ip5OWcoE6GE](https://youtu.be/ip5OWcoE6GE)

Here's the performace mentioned in the article. I'd never seen it before. It's
pretty fantastic though. Robin Williams does a great show.

~~~
HeXetic
My friends & I watched the South Park movie on an almost monthly basis at the
time and frankly I remember feeling like they'd completely butchered the song.
The whole point is that blaming Canada is arbitrary and deflects from solving
the real issues, hence why the song in the film barely says anything about
Canada at all: the only two actual references are to hockey and Anne Murray
because of course that's all the bumpkins of South Park are going to know
about the place.

Then the Oscar performance comes along and Robin Williams pads the song with a
_lot_ more references to actual people from Canada and I think it ruins the
point. The people of South Park don't want details or to know anything about
the problem, they want an easy target to blame and a rousing call to go kick
ass.

The joke's even continued when Sheila gives her morale-boosting speech to the
troops, and can't even think of what the Canadian army would be attacking
with: "Men, when you're out there in the battlefield, and you're looking into
the beady eyes of a Canadian as he charges you with his hockey stick or
whatever he has..."

~~~
wodenokoto
What did he add to the song that wasn’t in the movie? I didn’t catch anything
“new”, except that they left out the “it’s not even a real country anyway”

But I agree that the joke of almost every South Park joke is not what they
say, but who says it.

~~~
brailsafe
It's a little hard to catch, but that line was kept in.

~~~
abtinf
Hard to catch? It is very clearly stated at 1:25.

------
HeXetic
> Marilyn Manson famously told Michael Moore in 2002’s Bowling for Columbine
> that, rather than saying anything to Harris and Klebold, if given the
> chance, he would instead opt to listen to them, because “that’s what no one
> did.”

Wrong. The quote wasn't about talking to the perpetrators. Moore was asking
Manson what he would tell the victim's parents, the community, the other kids
at the school, and he said he would listen instead.

It then cuts to Moore interviewing two surviving kids from the school.

~~~
jakkyboi
I went back to the clip and while you are right, that was the question - im
almost certain Manson heard "the kids at Columbine" and took it to mean Harris
and Klebold and answered that question, not the one that was asked.

~~~
HeXetic
Maybe, but I don't think so. Before this interview, Moore shows a number of
clips from news networks and other talking heads blaming the crime on all
sorts of things -- video games, music, etc. Then later Moore interviews the
very level-headed parent of a victim who says nobody from any news
organization tried to talk to him or listen to what he had to say.

The idea I believe Moore is trying to convey is that news people _told_ the
community & survivors why this happened, placing blame according to their own
biases (or those of their corporation), instead of asking and investigating
and listening. This ties into the title of the film and the result of the next
interview with the two survivors: the perpetrators were also heavily into
bowling, so how come nobody was blaming that?

Manson may still have misinterpreted the question but his answer does make
sense in the context of what Moore shows -- that nobody went and actually
listened to the people in the community.

~~~
Tiltowait--
Nobody was interested in what mass murderers have to say. It just inspires
more mass murderers. Did anyone read the manifesto of the New Zealand mosque
killer? It was censored for a reason.

~~~
Jtsummers
It can actually be very important to know what they have to say because it can
provide insight into their actions. Whether you agree with their views and
actions or not (which likely you do not, in the case of mass murderers). But
knowing what they're thinking creates the possibility for intervention in
similar cases elsewhere before they go on to commit violent acts.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Yes, it definitely should be available for prevention research.

------
tsomctl
If you think you know everything about South Park, I still recommend you read
it. It's a really good article that analyzes old South Park from a modern
perspective.

~~~
scott_s
There's a lot of pieces that go much further in analyzing South Park [1], but
the best analysis I've read is actually a three-year-old Reddit comment:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke2/comments/5li8i9/south_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke2/comments/5li8i9/south_park_sucks/dbvyu0o/)

The opening paragraph:

> South Park has always been fundamentally reactionary; those pushing for
> change are wrong no matter what change they push for. Nothing is a bigger
> crime to Matt and Trey than Giving a Shit. Their ideology is apathetic-
> libertarian; whether you're on the left or the right, if you're asking me to
> change my behavior, you suck.

[1] A Washington Post piece links to a bunch of them, "I criticized ‘South
Park’ for spawning a generation of trolls. And so the trolls came for me.",
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/21/i-critici...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/21/i-criticized-
south-park-spawning-generation-trolls-so-trolls-came-me/)

~~~
jariel
I think this analysis is completely off. They are not reactionary, they are
antagonists towards those with power and who take themselves too seriously:
Parents (esp. in the minds of children), Politicians, Celebrities.

That's not 'apathetic' and not 'nihilist' (from the article).

That they've done 20 years of such things and the only 'really wrong' thing
they will have done is 'Man Bear Pig' is not bad - especially in the 00's when
there was still a lot of popular debate about Climate Change. FYI Al Gore's
wife, Tipper Gore, is why you see 'Parental Advisory Stickers' on music, which
I don't care about but 'antagonists' will perceive that as a problem.

The Washington Post article is wrong to suggest that 'South Park' created any
kind of trolling attitude. The Author is part of the group of those who 'take
themselves too seriously' and can't grasp that. That the author was 'trolled'
is an artifact of anything popular these days. Sports Journalists are trolled
by Ronaldo fans because they say 'Messi is good'.

FYI: I should add they describe themselves as 'punk' in the article and that
label fits well: it's not political, it's visceral, and if anything a shade
anarchist, though their politics lean 'libertarian' as they have noted some
time ago.

~~~
Shoreleave
I also think the analysis is completely off. South Park has always spent much
more time making fun of the status quo than of those pushing for change.

South Park is reactionary when rich white people have decided to take up a
cause that they previously ignored. It makes fun of the self-serving,
hypocritical actions of those in charge, not of the change itself.

------
tux1968
Censoring foul language seems almost quaint now. We're busy taking it to the
next level.

~~~
jaspax
Censoring foul language is arguably the _main_ thing that we're on about now
---with a redefinition of what counts as "foul".

~~~
jariel
They used to censor language and 'ideas'. You could not attack Christianity,
or present civil figures (ie the President, the Flag) in a bad light.
Hollywood up to 1970's was very much about projecting morality in the
classical sense. (Edit: Cohen Brother's 'Hail Caesar' depicts this hilariously
with 1950's Hollywood execs in a funny meeting with various Priests and Rabbis
trying to get approval for a big '10 Commandments'-like epic. Hilarity ensues
as the various sects begin to argue about God ...)

1970 - 2010 it was mostly just language i.e. this or that word.

We are now back to censoring 'ideas' but it's the other side of the fence. NYT
called for banning 'Paw Patrol' (kids cartoon) for its 'normalisation' of the
social roles of police, 'COPS' was dropped because of its ostensible
'glorification of police'. Which I can possibly understand in an intellectual
sense, but pragmatically it's completely ridiculous. 30 Rock, one of the
smartest and best comedies every madd - and it's not even 10 years old - is
already getting episodes banned.

~~~
cavanasm
Feels like you either missed the point of some of those specific recent
examples, or you're oversimplifying them.

With the show, Cops (Live PD as well), the overriding concern was that the
film crew and the process had turned law enforcement work into voyeuristic
spectacle, literally profiting off the pain of others (some may believe those
people deserve that pain, but that's a separate issue), and possibly even
influenced the officers being filmed to engage in their duties differently
than they might have otherwise.

Left out, also, is that 30 Rock's "censored" episodes featured blackface,
which at this point, the issues with the practice have been covered
exhaustively, and large corporations are only now deciding to care as they see
public opinion shift, but it wasn't a great idea when they produced those
episodes at the time, either.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> into voyeuristic spectacle, literally profiting off the pain of others (some
> may believe those people deserve that pain, but that's a separate issue),

The entire news media is like that in a large sense. What purpose does
interviewing a family whose home got destroyed in a tornado serve? Of course
they feel bad. Of course they will cry. “If it bleeds it leads”. Just like a
car accident on the side of the road, people are drawn to watch. The news
media profits off of that voyeuristic impulse to watch the misery of others.

~~~
cavanasm
And that's a fully valid criticism of a certain style of mainstream news that
I completely agree with, and that is also being discussed in some circles, and
even by some journalists, although it hasn't hit mainstream media level
consideration openly. All falls into the massive and fraught discussion around
how news gets paid for.

~~~
kbenson
> All falls into the massive and fraught discussion around how news gets paid
> for.

More appropriately I think (at least for TV), it falls into the discussion of
how new doesn't see falling revenues. In the past, news was a payment back to
the public major networks paid to get access to the spectrum they were using.
when it became obvious there was a way to make the news divisions positive in
cashflow instead of cash sinks, they were optimized for that.

Now, where most news is probably delivered through an entirely different
medium, even that minimal connection to the public good incentivized through
the spectrum allocation is almost gone.

In the distant past, NBC, CBS and ABC would probably have been happy to do
away with their news divisions, because it cost them to run them. That they
would now fight you tooth and nail to keep them for the opposite reason should
put into stark contrast how the incentives have completely changed.

Is it possible to completely disentangle money from news? Probably not, and it
might not be a good idea. How do you fund investigative journalism if you do?
Influence will flow from the money no matter what, but then again maybe that's
not any different than it is now.

I don't know the solution. I'm also aware I'm glossing over the fact that
different parts of the news industry had perverse incentives long before this
(newspapers...), and that news probably was _never_ as altruistic as I'm
making it out to be, but it does seem like it's gotten worse. I have to
imagine if the Founding Fathers had the current status quo in mind when they
wrote the constitution and initial amendments, they would have tried to put
some restrictions on the ownership of the press to go along with those
freedoms.

------
aaron695
> On Wednesday, all 23 seasons of South Park come to HBO Max.

HBO is censoring 5 episodes

[https://www.ign.com/articles/south-park-hbo-max-muhammad-
cen...](https://www.ign.com/articles/south-park-hbo-max-muhammad-censored-
banned-streaming)

------
spicyramen
One of my favorite things of this show is the freedom to mock most of the
topics in a way Cartman represent that extreme, others represent the common
sense, but is very important for both left and right which have gone extreme
to reason and discuss, this show is a good example of how any topic can be
discussed just not ignored

------
th0ma5
"... the show that portrayed earnestness as the only sin and taught that
mockery is the ultimate inoculation against all criticism."
[https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/14/south-park-tweet-leaves-
fans-...](https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/14/south-park-tweet-leaves-fans-fuming-
goes-viral-12240062/amp/)

------
glangdale
I always thought that song got the nomination as a proxy for the much catchier
Uncle Fucker, which would have been a bit... problematic to nominate.

------
asjw
The documentary about South Park studios production process "6 days to air" is
pretty great

I watch it regularly to not forget how to give everything you can in a short
time span and still enjoy what you're doing

I learned to work 6 months/year and make a full year salary

I've been working at a more reasonable pace for the past few years, mostly
because I'm not consulting anymore, but sprints have become more of a
challenge that I still enjoy once or twice a year.

~~~
randompwd
> I learned to work 6 months/year and make a full year salary

Just post the affiliate link to your vitamins already...

~~~
asjw
In Italy we work approximately 220 days a year, 5 days a week, we have 52
weekends (as everybody else) 24 days of payed holidays and another 10 days of
national holidays.

six months, 6 days a week it's about 160 days.

Working an hour and half more everyday day is like working 7/7, so about 185
working days.

It's totally doable.

But admittedly not for a long time and not if you're forced to do it

------
vxNsr
This article is riddled with false or misleading statements, it's got lots of
interesting information but take basically anything it says about south park
(negative or positive) with a giant grain of salt. Doubly so for any other
topic.

The whole article is filtered through the lens of a far-left extremist who
just got off a 48 hour marxist bender.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't post ideological flamebait or call names in HN
comments.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
oxymoran
“Their nihilism and contrarianism have proved to be occasionally quite
frustrating over the years, often serving as a twisted, reversed version of
what we now might refer to as the “very fine people on both sides” philosophy.
(One quote they will never escape came from Matt Stone in 2005: “I hate
conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”)”

So everyone has to pick one of these 2 idiotic and emotionally driven sides
now? There is no room for a 3rd point of view? That’s where we are at? Look, I
know Trump is a racist, lying, dipshit but we need to recognize that both
parties have nothing but their own interests at heart. I mean come on. Just
look at policy from the Obama era and compare it to policy from the Bush era.
Hard to see much of a difference. They are two wings from the same bird and
the only way we can make America work for all people and close the income
inequality gap is to overcome partisan politics.

~~~
verall
I hate this kind of argument - of course the parties care mainly about their
own power - they are literally political parties. Obama's policy was quite
different from Bush's in many ways (domestically especially) and similar in
other ways (say wrt the Middle East). The Democratic party also did not have
control of both house and Senate for more than 2 years. During those 2 years
the ACA was passed.

What are you getting at? Do you believe that because both parties care first
about power means they are equally bad? Or even close?

~~~
perl4ever
If you think one party is a lost cause, and the other is our only hope, then
you have to focus on the flaws of the latter, don't you? The logic is cruel.

