Comedy is not dead. Comedy can change minds. Comedy is powerful and attacks the self-important and authoritarianism. Comedy can take on serious challenges in the best way.

> John Cleese in On Creativity said: "the self-important always know with some level of their consciousness that their egotism is going to be punctured by humor -- that's why they see it as a threat. And so {they} dishonestly pretend that their deficiency makes their views more substantial, when it only makes them feel bigger. {John blows "raspberries" with his tongue.} No, humor is an essential part of spontaneity, an essential part of playfulness, an essential part of the creativity that we need to solve problems, no matter how 'serious' they may be. " [1]

Not everyone is appeasing authoritarians, definitely not South Park.

China is Cartman right now "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!"

[1] https://youtu.be/Pb5oIIPO62g?t=1544

Comedy is threatened by corporations and people assuming the position for tyranny.

To be fair for Viacom, they still haven't pulled South Park. In fact, they renewed it until 2022. Yes, they've forced censorship here and there. But when you take South Park as a whole, you'd be hard pressed to find a big entertainment conglomerate who would allow South Park antics. Matt and Trey really don't take prisoners and Viacom has been bank rolling that. They've done what they can to protect themselves legally, which yes, is censorship. But again, to be fair, they're running a business. It would make far more business sense just to shut down South Park instead. So, for that, you can't just totally shit on them. Maybe just a small poo fling. Maybe two. But that's it.

South Park is in a unique situation, because they make fun of everyone, it's less toxic to brands than a show that has offeneded a specific group.

I don't know, I think they pretty much offend everyone poignantly. At such a level I find it hard that a brand, especially these days, wouldn't be scared to be affiliated with them. To their credit, yes, they tend to offend both sides of an issue in a rather honest way. There's a good reason they got a liberal award. They play middle fence pretty damn well... so well the group giving the award didn't know they were republicans.

Still, they do specifically call out groups. I can't think of any that are actually safe or get a pass. I mean, they rag on Christianity and Judaism all the time. Then they do an episode harpooning and calling out atheists & Dawkins for being a bunch of assholes and make the case that religion isn't so bad.

I don't know if we'll ever see another South Park. Tight turn around times on episodes so their content is fresh and relevant. Best example of balanced opinion thus far... as a show where kids swearing and making fart jokes are the tame/mild highlights of the episodes... It's just... I think it's a straight up anomaly, not simply a unique situation. Seinfeld being as long running, successful and "sophisticated" show, that was unique. South Park said "hold my beer" to that and then shits in your hand just to get laughed at by a fat kid with an alien dish satellite popping out of his ass. And we are all okay with it!

> I don't know if we'll ever see another South Park.

We need more, not fewer South Parks.

Not that I agree with their every riff (being of the Evangelical ilk) but their irreverence is as American as the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

We either wear our South Park with pride, or become as Hong Kong or Venezuela or another country people are fleeing.

Comedy faces a greater threat from the "woke" #metoo crowd at colleges and online than any profit seeking corporate entity.

Why are we conflating "woke" PC culture with #metoo?

One is about being offended by things, the other is about coming forward about having been sexually assaulted or showing solidarity for them.

Let's keep clear and separate distinctions between people being offended and people being raped.

I think they're referencing the mob-like mentality that built up around #metoo, trial by social media etc. See the Al Franken fiasco, for example.

To me women's rights needs to be distinguished from #metoo for this reason, but in any event I don't think the gp comment was totally inappropriate in equating "wokeness" and #metoo as having a large social impression management component (even if you disagree with it).

Truth. Ask Chappelle... "You people are the worst motherfucker's I've tried to entertain in my life!"

Maybe corporate comedy. There will always be a joke in dark places. You can find books written from the jokes told by those in the Nazi concentration camps.

"the pessimists are in new york, the optimists are in auschwitz."

source: woman i cared for when working in a home for the elderly. she had a number tattoo.

Do you have any examples of such books?

Going off the Wikipedia plot summary of the episode, it looks like it makes fun of (a) Chinese-American people (not the Chinese government); and (b) paranoid fantasies of Westerners about China invading the U.S.; and ultimately "Cartman decides he'd rather be Chinese than "a nation of unethical dick shooters"".

My model of the Chinese government at the moment is that they primarily care about opposition/disrespect/criticism of the Chinese government. Does anyone have data points as to whether they care about, say, present-day racist insults of (a) Chinese-Americans; (b) Chinese living in China? Might be interesting to see where the lines are drawn.

EDIT: After writing this I realized the parent comment was talking about an episode of South Park from S12, not the recent episode that led to the ban in China. I'll leave this up but read into this with that context!

You should really actually watch the episode. It's a blatant dig at China's government, censorship policies, and treatment of political prisoners. Its treatment of `China invading the US` were not out of `paranoia`, as you say, but based out of reality. It attacks Disney for making similar concessions to the Chinese government in its MCU movies.

Spoilers, but deeper analysis:

Randy's story arc this season appears to revolve around surrendering your morals for the next dollar- for example, last season he turned down a deal with a large marijuana corporation to continue his home-grow operation, but proceeded to create a partnership with them in the season premiere to ensure his stake in South Park's weed market. The scene where he garrotes Winnie the Pooh in this episode, to me, is an extension of this same theme- the sellout of what we've taken as sacred, except now, it's to China's CCP. Contrast that to the name of Randy's farm, which is a bastardization of the word `integrity`.

The entire segment about the band biopic in this episode is basically saying the same thing but far more overtly.

The parent was commenting one the episode linked in that image (S12E8), since that was that GP compared the current episode to.

Damn! Thanks for the clarification there, I'll edit my post to reflect that.

Without touching on the ethical / moral aspect of stereotyping or disrespecting large groups of people, I'm curious if "racist" is the right adjective here, vs some other term that relates more to nationality vs biological ethnicity?

The way South Park employs xenophobic/racist/sexist tropes is interesting - they are either so silly that its really hard for anyone to take offense, or they spread it around so much - no one group is ever singled out - and no one group is ever spared. That gives us all permission to laugh at them, and laugh at ourselves, when the time comes.

Or... the portrayal isn't actually targeting group of the character embodying the trope. It's targeting those that hold such tropes, in a way that exposes the absurdity of them.

There was a movie few years ago, Tropic Thunder. Robert Downy Jr is in black-face the entire movie, and it's hilarious - and somehow he isn't cancelled. Why? His character in the movie is a white, self-serious method actor (he stays in character all the time), who had medical treatments to alter the pigment of his skin in order to portray the African-American lead in a movie. And his depiction is one giant super charged trope. But the actual butt of the joke isn't black people - its actually the pretentious actors and Hollywood in general. In essence, its making a statement about the absurdity, self-importance, actors, studios, etc in Hollywood, and the lack of the social justice and equality there.

South Park wields "*ist" tropes in a similar way, and I think its incorrect to think of it as racism, or xenophobia, etc.

In South Park, there's one black character in the cast, and his name is Token. As in the token black kid. Out of context, and on its face, it might seem racist. But its saying something else, just like RDJ's role in Tropic Thunder.

To be more precise he's the only black fairly major child character. He has a family, there was Chef in earlier seasons, there are a few black minor recurring characters besides those, and there are black single-episode characters. But yes, after the death of Chef it turns out Token is the only major character who is black.

Tropic Thunder Robert Downey Jr. compilation from youtube for context. NSFW due to violence and swearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9eUnzGc_Kw

Agreed! FTR I wasn't accusing SP of being *ist, rather looking for something like "xenophobia", as applied toward people from a particular nation; in this case, perhaps "Sinophobia"?

> and his name is Token

Thank you, it just clicked...

I think it is the right adjective for what I have in mind. Scenarios I was looking to compare include "Celebrity uses race-based insults (e.g. slurs, references to stereotypical physical attributes) against a Chinese-American, or a group of them", vs "Celebrity uses race-based insults against a Chinese person living in China, or a group of them", vs "Celebrity condemns X action by the Chinese government". Ideally, one could find incidents of each type with similarly high-profile celebrities at similarly high-profile events, and then compare the responses.

> how made fun of China was in past South Park episodes

Well, stereotypes of Chinese aren't eloquent enough to piss off the CCP. As a mainlander, Band in China is a spot-on satire about China under Xi's ruling (apart from the background music), and every threat to the legitimacy of the authority would be quenched while making fun of Chinese ppl is by no means harmful.

That episode is 10 years old and falls under the pre-Xi era leadership. Under Xi, authoritarianism in China has been increased next to China enforcing such policies beyond their own borders.

Slight tangent: A previous episode of South Park (Super Best Friends) also showed a picture of Muhammad [1], which caused zero problems. A later one (Cartoon Wars) had Muhammad censored by Comedy Central because it was after the furore over the Dutch Muhammad cartoons.

I guess with all these things it’s about context and the political climate.

[1] https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjJmMTUzOGEtYjEyNS00...

It shows the current political climate is unusual.

Sometimes it just shows that something got viral where others didn't.

You could have 200 things mentioning a country or situation, and only 1 or 2 going viral and getting some kind of major response.

It's not like South Park is the only show making fun of China either -- so of 100s of shows and comedy sketches, etc, it was some part that touched a nerve or accidentally got more popular there...

I'd say it also shows that during the period of intensified political pressure, things are more likely to go viral and trigger a strong reaction.

Had any one or any group of people left any impression that they can be consistent across long time frame?

If so, let me know, I'd be very interested in studying their logic thinking and memory, and how they manage to be consistent at all.

That said, there are billions of reasons why things was reacted this way or ignored altogether, and later differently.

That's the norm.