this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
8 points (100.0% liked)
BBC
139 readers
254 users here now
BBC News - News Front Page
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree. From the article:
"The irony is that the character Timmy is presented with warmth in South Park and given character depth by co-creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker."
It's really dark humor, but it's thoughtful and empathetic. The problem is when viewers don't understand those nuances.
Just because people don't understand the nuance doesn't mean people aren't bullied as a result of the show.
And yet you'll find, per the excerpt of the article I presented in my comment, that actual people with actual, similar disabilities (including this bullied author) cite Timmy as an example of meaningful representation. That doesn't mean that he's somehow objectively good or causes no harm, but it does suggest that vzq's comment comes from a place of well-meaning ignorance and doesn't comport with what the people actually affected by Timmy's portrayal think.
The entire show, as written, Is a two step backward three step forwards kind of thing. Which would be sort of fine if it didn’t attract the kind of viewers that never make it to the three steps forwards.
So all your left with is people shouting TIMMAH and MANBEARPIG.
Timmy isn't at all comparable to Manbearpig. Manbearpig was Matt and Trey being smarmy dipshits who didn't understand or try to understand climate science and wanted to make fun of people who were warning about it; they even ate crow much later in the show by having Manbearpig turn out to be an actually real creature. I'm sure any climate scientist would tell you that Manbearpig was a setback for the public perception of climate change.
Timmy was Matt and Trey delicately creating a character who at face value seems like a joke but who actually represents a sincere, thought-out, and respectful portrayal of disability and is often cited as meaningful representation by those with similar disabilities.
The smarmy dipshit stuff is what attracts the dipshit viewers.
It’s all connected. It’s unredeemable as a whole.
Would you say the dark knight is irredeemable as a movie because of what it did to incels trying to be joker?
Haven’t seen it. But in general, I don’t think as a creator you can ethically dismiss the social impact of your work. Especially if you could have foreseen it or have kept doing it for a long time after the impact had started to manifest.
And South Park is definitely in the latter category.
So any medium that portrays something controversial shouldn't, because media illiterate idiots will take it at face value. Gotcha.
That’s not what I wrote. Like, not even a bit.
Oh my God the media illiteracy is coming from inside the thread.
Exactly.