The Sometimes (Religiously) Clueless Creators of South Park

[Ken Carman]

I started to post this in Entertainment, but to be honest the majority of the column I will refer to is about the creators and their take on religion. Mods: feel free to move if you think it best. Perhaps even a cross post, if allowed?

I would be curious how many watch South Park, and what folks feel about the scripting, the characters, etc.. I recently wrote a column about Park and, if you wish, you can review it my more complete take on SP HERE.

Park uses over the top satire to mock much of society. Sometimes I feel it's on the mark, sometimes way off base. However, when it comes to faith, lack of faith, and those between I really feel they are clueless. While I haven't seen Book of Mormon, I feel from clips I have seen they are more on the mark there: perhaps because Steven Schawrtz helped write and produce it, from what I understand. Steven Schwartz: Godspell and Wicked, seems to have a bit more of a clue when it comes to faith and lack of it from what I have heard in his scripting.

Anything South Park is up for grabs here.

[BlackSheep]

In what way do you feel they are off the mark?

[Night]

They don't have to be "on the mark", as they have a license from god himself, a creative license.

[Ken Carman]

Night...

Of course they don't have to. That doesn't mean they can't be criticized, of course. To me, though, it's sloppy creativity. There was an old repeating joke on Laugh In, may have been Smother Brothers, where one comedian would go on and on about something until it was pointed out they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Then they'd say, "Never mind." That's how I feel about these guys whenever they address Atheists or Agnostics in their satire.

BLS...

This is frustrating. I posted an answer to another response that answered your question as much as I care to without someone clicking on the link. Both posts have gone poof away. No idea why they've been deleted. Now the link explains, but I have no wish to simply whore out my own column when I come here. So I'll mention it, give you the option, but explain enough to keep the conversation going without clicking.

The missing post mentioned the Catholic satire they did. Of course I didn't say they NEVER did satire on others. (Think I used the word "mostly.")

I will give three examples of how they are off the mark. In one episode: the Catholic one actually, they had the adults decide to be Atheists once faced with the scandal. That's when they started eating their own #2. When they returned to believing they stopped. In another we were put into a future where everyone was an Atheist and were constantly at war, killing each other, over what they called themselves: Atheists United, or United Atheists , or...

These are not the only two examples. In fact I have found whenever they address Atheists and Atheism the basic premise seems to be, "Atheists are so stupid they would..." No real context. No actual scandal to mock. In another Dawkins is so stupid as to immediately accept Mrs. Garrison's sudden conversion to Atheism, and miss his/her rather confused sexuality, that he has a long relationship with him/her. In the end he is still painted as stupid and clueless.

Ergo they view Atheists and Agnostics (another example I gave) as clueless and stupid.

I don't believe the creators are stupid. But I do believe they are the clueless ones when it comes to Atheism and Agnosticism. Either that or they're being intentionally clueless because, like most people who hate with little reason, it's so easy to pretend "you're a poop-y head" is a rational talking point, or intellectually funny on it's own.

[BlackSheep]

BLS...

This is frustrating. I posted an answer to another response that answered your question as much as I care to without someone clicking on the link. The link explains, but I have no wish to simply whore out my own column when I come here. So I'll mention it, give you the option, but explain enough to keep the conversation going without clicking.

Sorry, I was not aware you just answered someone else, and I thought I searched all the posts. I was also not given the impression that your link was directly related to the OP and was more just a general interest to SP.
Anyways thank you for giving the examples.

The poster mentioned the Catholic satire they did. Of course I didn't say they NEVER did satire on others. (Think I used the word "mostly."

I will give three examples of how they are off the mark. In one episode: the Catholic one actually, they had the adults decide to be Atheists once faced with the scandal. That's when they started eating their own #2. When they returned to believing they stopped. In another we were put into a future where everyone was an Atheist and were constantly at war, killing each other, over what they called themselves: Atheists United, or United Atheists , or...

These are not the only two examples. In fact I have found whenever they address Atheists and Atheism the basic premise seems to be, "Atheists are so stupid they would..." No real context. No actual scandal to mock. In another Dawkins is so stupid as to immediately accept Mrs. Garrison's sudden conversion to Atheism, and miss his/her rather confused sexuality, that he has a long relationship with him/her. In the end he is still painted as stupid and clueless.

Ergo they view Atheists and Agnostics (another example I gave) as clueless and stupid.

I don't believe the creators are stupid. But I do believe they are the clueless ones when it comes to Atheism and Agnosticism. Either that or they're being intentionally clueless because, like most people who hate with little reason, it's so easy to pretend "you
re a poop-y head" is a rational talking point, or intellectually funny on it's own.

I do recall that now - the Atheist examples and I agree. to be honest thought I might be too close to the subject matter. On the other hand I do feel that the makers are very intelligent so it does baffle me to a degree.

[Jack]

Cut to around 11:45 for Matt and Trey talking about the Dawkins episode and their take on religion. They admit they are less talkers than cartoonists, so their observations aren't especially profound, but at least it's their own words on the subject.

[Ken Carman]

Jack...

Did your link to the Vimeo post? It's not showing on my screen for some reason. Whenever it's up I'll have to wait til I hit a library: dialup and vid don't seem very compatible these days. Sounds interesting though.

[Jack]

Dial-up is a killer of streaming video. Sorry.

[GeekyBatman]

I don't necessarily disagree, but to be perfectly honest, I don't really care how accurate they're being. If I find it funny, even if I know it's incorrect, I'll laugh, because it's a comedy show and they're not trying to be politically correct (or any other form of correctness, for that matter).

[Ken Carman]

GB

I don't necessarily disagree, but to be perfectly honest, I don't really care how accurate they're being. If I find it funny, even if I know it's incorrect, I'll laugh, because it's a comedy show and they're not trying to be politically correct (or any other form of correctness, for that matter).

Not sure PC, or any kind of "correctness," works here. The point to me is the mocking doesn't work. Kind of like mocking Jews by saying their pimples are ugly. Huh?The problem here is that it's worse than that, IMO. Sometimes what they claim is the exact opposite of what is. For example, I have yet to meet an Agnostic who goes all storm trooper in his, or her, quest to make damn sure nobody else ever decides anything. Agnosticism is a personal decision, definitely not one that demands others agree. They simply don't understand what they mock, IMO.

I know "lighten up" might apply here, except their mocking in these cases flat out doesn't work. If, as an entertainer, my jokes missed the mark that much I'd probably be out of a job. I guess they have a damn big stage to dance on. Smaller stages tend to create tougher crowds, from my experience.

[Charos]

Night...

Of course they don't have to. That doesn't mean they can't be criticized, of course. To me, though, it's sloppy creativity. There was an old repeating joke on Laugh In, may have been Smother Brothers, where one comedian would go on and on about something until it was pointed out they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Then they'd say, "Never mind." That's how I feel about these guys whenever they address Atheists or Agnostics in their satire.

BLS...

This is frustrating. I posted an answer to another response that answered your question as much as I care to without someone clicking on the link. Both posts have gone poof away. No idea why they've been deleted. Now the link explains, but I have no wish to simply whore out my own column when I come here. So I'll mention it, give you the option, but explain enough to keep the conversation going without clicking.

The missing post mentioned the Catholic satire they did. Of course I didn't say they NEVER did satire on others. (Think I used the word "mostly.")

I will give three examples of how they are off the mark. In one episode: the Catholic one actually, they had the adults decide to be Atheists once faced with the scandal. That's when they started eating their own #2. When they returned to believing they stopped. In another we were put into a future where everyone was an Atheist and were constantly at war, killing each other, over what they called themselves: Atheists United, or United Atheists , or...

I'm pretty certain this was a direct riff on Monty Python, have you seen Life of Brian yet? There's all these underground movements of Jews, "The peoples front of Judea", "The Judean Peoples Front" and so on, and all of them hate each other and some eventually end up killing each other...that was the immediate thought that came to mind watching it.

These are not the only two examples. In fact I have found whenever they address Atheists and Atheism the basic premise seems to be, "Atheists are so stupid they would..." No real context. No actual scandal to mock. In another Dawkins is so stupid as to immediately accept Mrs. Garrison's sudden conversion to Atheism, and miss his/her rather confused sexuality, that he has a long relationship with him/her. In the end he is still painted as stupid and clueless.

I think that's the point...the writers have said before "if you make fun of one group you get called out on it, we just figured we would make fun of EVERYONE, that way there would be nothing to complain about because we're never singling any one group out." Sort of reminds me of when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire, he went on and just ripped them to utter shreds, referred to what they did as "partisan hackery" and made fun of one of the hosts polka dot bow tie. The hosts were riding him about not being confrontational enough with McCain on his show and after some back and forth he just blurted out "guys, the show on before mine is PUPPETS MAKING PRANK PHONE CALLS!!", basically saying "it's a damn comedy show man, my job is to get laughs, not give accurate news". Here:

jon stewart on crossfire - YouTube

Ergo they view Atheists and Agnostics (another example I gave) as clueless and stupid.

I don't believe the creators are stupid. But I do believe they are the clueless ones when it comes to Atheism and Agnosticism. Either that or they're being intentionally clueless because, like most people who hate with little reason, it's so easy to pretend "you're a poop-y head" is a rational talking point, or intellectually funny on it's own.

Again though, they treat EVERYONE like an idiot, that's the schtick, there's no safe ground with them...I think that's the whole purpose of the show, to show the stupid crap PEOPLE do, not just people of a certain ilk, but people in general.

[Night]

I thought their episode where Dawkins and Mr/Ms Garrison hook up is just fucking hilarious. Goes down in my book as one of the funniest episodes.