(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

[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.