(no subject)

[lollardfish]

Can anyone more knowledgeable than I point out any examples of the Vilification Tennis show doing productive social satire - that is, making fun of something in order to demonstrate its impropriety or nonsensical nature?

I'm seeing excuses that I shouldn't be offended at their upcoming show because it's productive social satire.

I think it's just an excuse and the show isn't about satire, it's about getting laughs by being as mean as possible. They are really good at it. They get a lot of laughs. I think they're kidding themselves about the satire, but I'm not that familiar with their shows.

Comments

[zarathud23.livejournal.com]

Well said, jmanna!

--Eric M. Clark

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Good long thread and I want to break it down, but let's start with what I would love, but do not expect, to see. It would look something like this.

I was wrong about South Park. In my mind, not really thinking about it, I felt that South Park was creating effective social satire, including about disability issues. Having been corrected by both you and Minnehaha K., and going back over some shows, I think I was really wrong. Although SP does a lot of good satire, their use of Timmy and Jimmy is to get laughs OUT of their disabilities (TIMMY! and the stuttering), rather than by satirizing the stigma. Having reached that conclusion, I definitely cannot watch the shows about Timmy/Jimmy again.

I actually think this is mostly what Vil is doing. The word "Retard" is funny because it makes the audience think about people with odd facial expressions who don't understand what's going on. Somewhere in this thread, a different Jen posted the joke, "You're so stupid that you think retard is a noun." That's funny because it sets the expectation of making you laugh at retards, but actually reveals something else entirely. It's exactly why I started this thread ... not to win, not to see people admit they were wrong, but to understand more about the perceptions behind the show and how this situation reached this place.

At any rate, does being wrong about SP and disability mean that I have to boycott SP? I honestly don't know. I have asked people not to go to this Vil show. I have not asked anyone to boycott Vil forever. That's where intention comes in for me. V-T is not trying to hurt us ... they just did. And there are moral and ethical consequences for that, and perhaps social ones for them (there are DEFINITELY social consequences for me for speaking out). But I see no malice towards the disabled or towards my family here - people are just trying to get laughs. So is South Park. Do I still get to watch the Obama episode?

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

But that's the thing. There's a pile of jokes in each episode that insult some person or another. You have just basically said that if it doesn't slight you personally you're okay with it.

And I'm saying you can't cherry pick. Either you appreciate the humor of South Park, whether it's directed at you or not, or you find it offensives. Because saying 'Well that part isn't hurtful to me so I don't mind' is hypocritical.

And you don't need my permission. Watch or don't watch whatever you like.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I'm not asking for permission. I am investigating a moral question I find interesting and genuinely looking for alternative perspectives.

Take for example the character "Token." By his very name, his presence is satirical, pointing out the way that minorities are relegated as "Tokens" in mass media. I find this effective satire. If someone does find this offensive, I'd like to hear them articulate why. If his name was "Nigger," we'd have a different situation. Thinking about SP's use of disabled characters, I now feel that it's not productive satire and am trying to figure out if that means I have to wash my hands of the whole show, ethically.

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

And I think you're fast and loose with the details here.

Here's the deal with South Park. South park is going to insult everyone. If you're ever seen the very first episode (the 'Christmas' Special) they made for California cable access you would understand. In that episode they insult Christians, Jews, Gays, Overweight people, just about everyone. They make it clear that everyone is to be mocked for humor. If you cherry pick what mocking is offensive and what is satire, well then you're missing the point of South Park. South Park is open season on everyone. Everyone at some point is going to be offended by the show because that is what they do. They mock people's sensibilities. Whether it just for laughs or to make people wonder why they're sensitive, dunno. That's a question for the creators.

From your comments in the past, it seems you have attributed motivation to the creators intents while I would say nobody really knows they're real intent. At the same time, you've contributed malice to the action of the Vilification folks because they mocked something that is particularly important to you, your son.

Why does South Park deserve consideration of intent where Vilification does not?

[jmanna.livejournal.com]

Okay, just trying to clarify, it seems there's a lot of responsibility = malicious intent in the comments, not perhaps attributed by you but there it is. But my question is more along the lines of Why is vilification instantly hurtful where South Park requires contemplation? Is it just the use of that single word? Not arguing, just trying to clarify your position. Signal to noise and all.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Hey, I deleted the comment above because I said vast majority when I wanted to say minority, and didn't want to convey a false impression.

I'm not sure it's necessary to re-hash why the VT show title was offensive. I think Tim's discussion with me down below this thread somewhere covers that ground pretty well.

I'm trying to work with something that I find slippery. If this week the SP people do a show taunting fat people for being fat, propagating the idea that the fat should be mocked and marginalized, I think that's pretty clearly wrong. You may not. If next week they do a show demonstrating hypocrisy in the Catholic Church as regards pedophile priests, I think that's much more defensible. So the moral question at hand is that if I am offended by this week's show, is it morally inconsistent to watch next week's show, although not offensive to me. I'm leaning towards the answer yes, in order to be morally consistent, I need to stop watching the show altogether, regardless of subject matter. I am having trouble articulating why, though.