There's a lot of pieces that go much further in analyzing South Park [1], but the best analysis I've read is actually a three-year-old Reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke2/comments/5li8i9/south_...

The opening paragraph:

> South Park has always been fundamentally reactionary; those pushing for change are wrong no matter what change they push for. Nothing is a bigger crime to Matt and Trey than Giving a Shit. Their ideology is apathetic-libertarian; whether you're on the left or the right, if you're asking me to change my behavior, you suck.

[1] A Washington Post piece links to a bunch of them, "I criticized ‘South Park’ for spawning a generation of trolls. And so the trolls came for me.", https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/21/i-critici...

I think this analysis is completely off. They are not reactionary, they are antagonists towards those with power and who take themselves too seriously: Parents (esp. in the minds of children), Politicians, Celebrities.

That's not 'apathetic' and not 'nihilist' (from the article).

That they've done 20 years of such things and the only 'really wrong' thing they will have done is 'Man Bear Pig' is not bad - especially in the 00's when there was still a lot of popular debate about Climate Change. FYI Al Gore's wife, Tipper Gore, is why you see 'Parental Advisory Stickers' on music, which I don't care about but 'antagonists' will perceive that as a problem.

The Washington Post article is wrong to suggest that 'South Park' created any kind of trolling attitude. The Author is part of the group of those who 'take themselves too seriously' and can't grasp that. That the author was 'trolled' is an artifact of anything popular these days. Sports Journalists are trolled by Ronaldo fans because they say 'Messi is good'.

FYI: I should add they describe themselves as 'punk' in the article and that label fits well: it's not political, it's visceral, and if anything a shade anarchist, though their politics lean 'libertarian' as they have noted some time ago.

I also think the analysis is completely off. South Park has always spent much more time making fun of the status quo than of those pushing for change.

South Park is reactionary when rich white people have decided to take up a cause that they previously ignored. It makes fun of the self-serving, hypocritical actions of those in charge, not of the change itself.

The word for the impression I get of the people who are trying to "analyze" SP, is sanctimonious. or douche. They're both fantastic.

These are people who thought South Park was on "their" side, only to get ridiculed by South Park. Thus they feel bitter and have to lash out.

They don't realize that they are the authoritarian jerks that South Park despises. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

That comment wasn't even the original. It's a repost of a comment from 2012, and the discussion the original one sparked is worth reading.

https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3tsd5o/south_p...

haha that ending sentence "South Park is, if you'll excuse the expression...a "safe space.""

In a sense it really is. If you are certain type of person. I used to be that person and yeah it felt really good.

I’d argue don’t read any analysis on it. It’s not ancient text, the source material is pretty available and relevant. Watch it, come to your own conclusions.