honestly the reality that there are full grown goyische adults who participate in the south park fandom really wigs me the fuck outÂ
i feel like i really canât explain to gentiles the extent to which south park specifically introduced my peers to antisemitism as children, which they then directed at me, a fellow childÂ
like, in a very specific and particular way, south park did a lot of damage to me as a jewish childÂ
âbut we make trans headcanons about the characters!â
make trans headcanons about something else
south park was directly responsible for me discovering, as a child, that gentiles i liked and trusted would target me for being jewish
and south park was directly responsible for me feeling like i had to laugh and accept it when they did
this was an extraordinarily negative thing for me as a personÂ
i love this post bc it really upsets specifically the most annoying gentiles alive
i love this post bc the notes are almost entirely either âjewish people sharing how south park led to them experiencing antisemitismâ and âgoyim getting really upset about thatâ
anyway fuck south park and fuck south park fans
My questions is: why are children watching South Park?
have you watched south park? any adult who enjoys that show or finds it clever has to be severely emotionally stunted. itâs the most adolescent piece of media i can actually think of
What a mature and reasoned response. So glad we can have such civil discussions like this.
Yeah, I watch South Park. Thankfully I have the cognitive function to know what satire is and what should and should not be emulated. Really, if you take it at face value in either direction, Iâd say a critical thinking class is in order.
Itâs not funny. Itâs a spineless juvenile shart of a cartoon that doesnât hold up to any actual critical thinking.
See, I donât feel convinced you actually know what satire is. And hereâs the key thing about âsatireâ since âreal people take it seriously and hurt other people,â isnât intellectual enough for you:
Satire is supposed to use wit, irony, parody, and exaggeration (of flaws/abuses/failings) to articulate a constructive social criticism or to expose social flaws.
In order to do that effectively, the satirist MUST have a stance of some kind that they are pushing for others to realize. To have an effective satirical work, you have to actually have an opinion of preference for one thing over another (whatever that social issue is). It should make people think.
But the creators proclaim they are âequal opportunity offenders,â and donât believe in political correctness. Which means they will attack everyone and everything without reservation and wonât actually articulate genuine critical stances on society which is the POINT of satire to begin with. It exposes nothing, stands for nothing, and doesnât do one of the most basic jobs of satire which is to make people think and self-reflect on social criticism.
Case in point, you.
You really donât consider what theyâve done with Scientology and Catholicism and the Presidency, and so many other organizations satire? You really think characters like Randy Marsh and Eric Cartman are made to be taken seriously and emulated?
I already gave you this answer. Itâs not effective satire. You can mock something without it being effective as satire.
Thereâs a term for this â a burlesque. Not as in a sexy dance on a stage, but as in âa literary or dramatic work that seeks to ridicule by means of grotesque exaggeration or comic imitation.â
Look, I have very little reason to believe you will listen to rational logic, literary/dramatic terms, criticisms of antisemitism or islamophobia, calls to morality (not being a dickhead), or even human compassion. I highly doubt I will change your mind or even have you responsive enough to listen to anything I say.
But I know other people will read this and I donât want them to walk away thinking that South Park was good or effective at satire.
South Park isnât a good satire, itâs a burlesque.
Stereotypes and burlesques are usually a bludgeon within comedy theater, but satire is a scalpel. The former is something any idiot with two sentences and an ego to rub together can accomplish, the latter requires knowledge, wit, and insight into both the audience (society) and themselves.
A different example:
Blackface is not a satire of black people. Blackface performers arenât meant to be âtaken seriouslyâ and they arenât meant to be âemulatedâ by the white audience, EXCEPT as a continuation of mockery. Blackface minstrelsy (the minstrel show) emerged in American Theater as a form of burlesque. Blackface seeks to ridicule black people by means of grotesque exaggeration and comic imitation. Itâs a cruel caricature and it degrades and derides, but it does not satirize.
And while minstrel shows may criticize something about black people vocally, mock them by acting as them, demean or jab at perceived flaws or shortcomings, that doesnât make them satirical.
Theyâre a cruel burlesque of blackness, not a satire. This is an important thing to understand: not every critical mocking of something (even if the criticism of say, the church of scientology, might be accurate or fair) is actually a good satire or even meant to be a satire.
So, do I believe South Park, is good or effective at satire when the creators claim theyâre equal opportunists of mockery and belittlement, and seem to not have an actual political or social message? No. I think it makes them a burlesque. A satire may include forms of burlesque, but it does so with purpose, not indiscriminately. As I said, itâs a shart of a cartoon. Do I think their reliance on the laziest of burlesque skits makes them a good satire? No. I donât. Do I think it ever intended anyone to seriously examine the world around them? No. âThinking critical things about something or someone,â is not the same thing as âprompts critical thinking.â
Do I think the creators intended for anyone to imitate their shitty characters? I donât think it matters what they originally intended because satire, more than anything, requires audience understanding.
Weâre talking about the fact that thousands of people did and do emulate those characters as a continuation of the mockery and belittlement the characters enact. If South Park was a good satire, its creators would be horrified because the reception of satire is crucial to its quality and effectiveness. Satire REQUIRES that the reception of the art matters, that there is INTENT and that the majority of the response (certainly anyone not being satirized) recognizes it.
A satire is sharp and precise. South Park is neither of those things. If it intended to be an actual satire itâs far and away one of the shittiest examples in popular culture. This would also be whether or not I agreed with them on anything â because a satire is supposed to have a pointed nature to it. It needs to have a coherent target.
Adding btw: penguin literary terms dictionary entry excerpts:
âsole dread of folly, vice, and insolence!â
âself-appointed guardian of standards, ideals and truthâŚâ
âa kind of protest, a sublimation and refinement of anger and indignation.â
