I know lots of kids that wouldn’t even know to mock Jews if it weren’t for Cartman. Seeing Cartman say the things he does is kind of like news media publicizing the latest life-threatening dangerous fad in the schoolyards; they make it seem more common than it is, and, therefore, make it possible to emulate. I’ve known kids have their vocablulary and modes of expression completely changed by South Park, in ways that made them seem incredibly rude and cruel by real-life, mainstream standards. It took me watching South Park to find out that they didn’t mean to be especially hostile or anything, they were just aping a show where “fuck” and “asshole” carried about as much aggressiveness as a punctuation mark.
Doesn’t stop them from loving it because of the toilet humour and the incessant swearing.
Also, this is one of the reasons why I dislike irony; what’s to stop you from replying to any critic “my level of recursive irony is one tier higher than yours; you just don’t have the refinement in taste to truly grasp it”. You can make millions with this all-explaining non-explanation. In fact, many modern artists did; it’s the whole concept behind camp and kitsch. Campbell’s Instant Tomato Soup indeed.
Critiquing something based on quality is one thing; if your intended audience doesn’t enjoy it then you have failed, no matter how much a small subset may love it “ironically”.
If you intended audience is adults, however, than inevitably your work is going to contain material that causes unintended effects when they watch it. I believe the standard example here is hardcore pornography—the problem isn’t that it scars children’s minds, it’s that children’s minds were exposed to it.
In this particular case, the assumption was that viewers, as educated adults in a modern society, would be aware that racism was, y’know, wrong. It was optimized for such people, not for impressionable children.
if your intended audience doesn’t enjoy it then you have failed, no matter how much a small subset may love it “ironically”.
What if it’s the reverse, that your intended audience does enjoy it, as it should, it while a large majority the total audience that enjoys is unintended? What if the intended audience is expected to love it ironically, while the unintended one adores it sincerely and earnestly, taking it at face value? Have you failed? You have achieved your win condition; the people that you thought should like it, do like it.
The humour in South Park is often, “ironically” or not, extremely immature and gross, (not to mention sharp, and original, and violent, and over-the-top, and accessible, and cruel), and thus appeals to children and teenagers. That’s why that sort of humour is called juvenile. You want humour kids won’t be interested in, make something like XKCD, or Discworld, or Portal, or understated stuff that requires subtlety and life experience to understand.
The same is true for porn; kids are attracted to it, once they reach puberty, even though it was not optimized for their consumption.
So what you’ve got to ask yourself is; “what are the sort of people who are liable to like the show, besides those for whom it is intended, and, knowing of their numbers and existence, should I make that show at all”? Why do you think Dave Chapelle cancelled the Chapelle Show? On the other hand, is there a point in not making this or that cultural product, if the “unintended audience” are going to generate something similar on their own?
Stop distributing alcohol and people will brew at home.
Stop distributing porn and children will masturbate to ads in Cosmo, National Geographic nudity, or even Liberty Leading The People I was raised in an Islamic country and we had no internet, and I can tell you, if worse came to worse, we used our imagination.
Stop making ironic racist jokes on TV that a lot of people are liable to take at face value, and the same people will still make genuine racist jokes.
So, yes, there are some things that cannot be stopped. The question is; should they be encouraged, or even enabled?
With an effort, I can imagine someone who objects to “accessible” humor as a matter of principle. But what could possibly be wrong with “original”?
I’m not listing things that are bad, I’m listing things that appeal to children. Children are attracted to some things that are objectionable, and they’re attracted to some things that aren’t. When you put all the attractive things together in a bundle, you get something that is very attractive, but which is complicated to value morally. Consequences can be difficult to predict, and they can be dire.
As for your second part, I’m not listing things that I think are bad, I’m listing things that you can’t ban because some people will go out of their way to make them anyway, especially if they’re already used to them.
I am somewhat confident that I could successfully argue, from a utilitarian standpoint, that alcohol and porn are bad (not “sinful” or “immoral” or “unacceptable” or “evil”, but that they result in a net loss of happiness and productive activity in the societies where they are ill-regutlated), but that’s not what this discussion is about. If you want to talk about that in more depth, please open a discussion on the open thread or send me a PM.
Edit: similarly, out of “alcohol”, “porn”, and “racism”, one of the three is not like the others, i.e. it is actually bad.
Alcohol damages health and impairs judgement, causing sizable numbers of deaths every year. Much pornography is produced in ways that harm women, whether they are being physically abused or effectively raped in order to afford food etc.
Arguably both could be done without harming others, even if they are not currently done that way; but I don’t want to get into this discussion (unfortunately, I also didn’t want to leave you without a reply entirely). You do have a point that the difference I wanted to point out isn’t actually clear-cut.
That series is utterly brilliant and should be taught in English class at every school. Only slightly less awesome is The West Wing, though in a very different way. Either are much more relevant and topical than, say, George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion or Shakespeare’s Midsummer’s Night Dream.
I was merely pointing out that the product works as intended. This does not alter the fact that it is harmful when misused, but it does provide some context.
I know lots of kids that wouldn’t even know to mock Jews if it weren’t for Cartman. Seeing Cartman say the things he does is kind of like news media publicizing the latest life-threatening dangerous fad in the schoolyards; they make it seem more common than it is, and, therefore, make it possible to emulate. I’ve known kids have their vocablulary and modes of expression completely changed by South Park, in ways that made them seem incredibly rude and cruel by real-life, mainstream standards. It took me watching South Park to find out that they didn’t mean to be especially hostile or anything, they were just aping a show where “fuck” and “asshole” carried about as much aggressiveness as a punctuation mark.
In fairness, the irony levels on South Park were not designed for children to appreciate or understand.
Doesn’t stop them from loving it because of the toilet humour and the incessant swearing.
Also, this is one of the reasons why I dislike irony; what’s to stop you from replying to any critic “my level of recursive irony is one tier higher than yours; you just don’t have the refinement in taste to truly grasp it”. You can make millions with this all-explaining non-explanation. In fact, many modern artists did; it’s the whole concept behind camp and kitsch. Campbell’s Instant Tomato Soup indeed.
Critiquing something based on quality is one thing; if your intended audience doesn’t enjoy it then you have failed, no matter how much a small subset may love it “ironically”.
If you intended audience is adults, however, than inevitably your work is going to contain material that causes unintended effects when they watch it. I believe the standard example here is hardcore pornography—the problem isn’t that it scars children’s minds, it’s that children’s minds were exposed to it.
In this particular case, the assumption was that viewers, as educated adults in a modern society, would be aware that racism was, y’know, wrong. It was optimized for such people, not for impressionable children.
What if it’s the reverse, that your intended audience does enjoy it, as it should, it while a large majority the total audience that enjoys is unintended? What if the intended audience is expected to love it ironically, while the unintended one adores it sincerely and earnestly, taking it at face value? Have you failed? You have achieved your win condition; the people that you thought should like it, do like it.
The humour in South Park is often, “ironically” or not, extremely immature and gross, (not to mention sharp, and original, and violent, and over-the-top, and accessible, and cruel), and thus appeals to children and teenagers. That’s why that sort of humour is called juvenile. You want humour kids won’t be interested in, make something like XKCD, or Discworld, or Portal, or understated stuff that requires subtlety and life experience to understand.
The same is true for porn; kids are attracted to it, once they reach puberty, even though it was not optimized for their consumption.
So what you’ve got to ask yourself is; “what are the sort of people who are liable to like the show, besides those for whom it is intended, and, knowing of their numbers and existence, should I make that show at all”? Why do you think Dave Chapelle cancelled the Chapelle Show? On the other hand, is there a point in not making this or that cultural product, if the “unintended audience” are going to generate something similar on their own?
Stop distributing alcohol and people will brew at home.
Stop distributing porn and children will masturbate to ads in Cosmo, National Geographic nudity, or even Liberty Leading The People I was raised in an Islamic country and we had no internet, and I can tell you, if worse came to worse, we used our imagination.
Stop making ironic racist jokes on TV that a lot of people are liable to take at face value, and the same people will still make genuine racist jokes.
So, yes, there are some things that cannot be stopped. The question is; should they be encouraged, or even enabled?
With an effort, I can imagine someone who objects to “accessible” humor as a matter of principle. But what could possibly be wrong with “original”?
Edit: similarly, out of “alcohol”, “porn”, and “racism”, one of the three is not like the others, i.e. it is actually bad.
I’m not listing things that are bad, I’m listing things that appeal to children. Children are attracted to some things that are objectionable, and they’re attracted to some things that aren’t. When you put all the attractive things together in a bundle, you get something that is very attractive, but which is complicated to value morally. Consequences can be difficult to predict, and they can be dire.
As for your second part, I’m not listing things that I think are bad, I’m listing things that you can’t ban because some people will go out of their way to make them anyway, especially if they’re already used to them.
I am somewhat confident that I could successfully argue, from a utilitarian standpoint, that alcohol and porn are bad (not “sinful” or “immoral” or “unacceptable” or “evil”, but that they result in a net loss of happiness and productive activity in the societies where they are ill-regutlated), but that’s not what this discussion is about. If you want to talk about that in more depth, please open a discussion on the open thread or send me a PM.
Alcohol damages health and impairs judgement, causing sizable numbers of deaths every year. Much pornography is produced in ways that harm women, whether they are being physically abused or effectively raped in order to afford food etc.
Arguably both could be done without harming others, even if they are not currently done that way; but I don’t want to get into this discussion (unfortunately, I also didn’t want to leave you without a reply entirely). You do have a point that the difference I wanted to point out isn’t actually clear-cut.
Racism can also be done without harming others if it doesn’t have anyone to be racist to and you’re right, this is getting offtopic.
Or Yes Minister
That series is utterly brilliant and should be taught in English class at every school. Only slightly less awesome is The West Wing, though in a very different way. Either are much more relevant and topical than, say, George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion or Shakespeare’s Midsummer’s Night Dream.
You can’t have a graveyard in a minefield...
If only it didn’t have one of those retarded laugh tracks …
I thought ti was a live studio audience? Anyway, I feel it’s rather judiciously used. Laugh tracks are not one of my peeve tropes.
I was merely pointing out that the product works as intended. This does not alter the fact that it is harmful when misused, but it does provide some context.