• Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Each one of these things is it’s own commentary, that is all. Judge obviously wasn’t doing cohesive world building; he was just squeezing together all the commentary he has on why people are hypocritical idiots. All the way down the the eugenics bit.

    Since that’s where the conversation started, let’s go to eugenics first. I would wager the writer has expienced the ‘cautious successful people with no kids’ trope a million times in real life and in his very successful career. He made it his own when he contrasted it with the Jerry Springer types; which was very culturally dominant at that time. Yes, we look at it today and only see the problematic eugenics message; but I imagine the writers regret when he sees the most intelligent, affectionate, people he knows never being able to do what the dummy’s on Springer find all to easy.

    The writers world is one on the brink of collapse. All because technology was so advance it was self sustaining, at least for a time. The excess it provided made society’s need for education, social structure, and governance evaporate. The time leading up to when Not Sure showed up could have been a cultural revolution of art and space exploration but instead was plagued with reality TV, fart humor, and fast food. All things that were dominating the culture when the writer wrote the script. Taken to the most extreme, focus on making more Gatorade then could ever be consumed would be in line with societies priorities at the time.

    Finally, Not Sure becoming president was a simple, funny, way to advance the story. It would be unkind for the author to make all this commentary without giving the audience a polite instruction that could help circumvent our tragic future. That comment being, just feed the plants water. Meaning stop with the idiocy. You don’t have to listen to the, “smartest man in the world” because Not Sure was just an ordinary 20th century guy and even he knew that plants need water.

    • Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’ve always found it funny how I’ve seen folks from both ideological sides point to this film as a satire of what’s wrong with the other. It’s a simple satire, but that’s what makes it effective.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Judge is master at this type of commentary. Beavis and butthead was making fun of how stupid the MTV audience was. The same audience that adopted and Beavis and Butthead just as fast as it was incepted.

        King of the hill is the ultimate “Steven Colbert is a sincere conservative show.” In king of the hill Hank is a nieve Texan that buys into every bullshit “American exceptionalism” type idealogy there is. He then humanizes him and shows how every single time Hank is returning to “American values” he’s just being nieve and if he were born anywhere else he would be just as liberal as he is a “conservative.”

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, this honestly just sounds like you’re saying he’s really good at vapid “commentary” that is little more than broad observational humour that falls apart on close inspection. “Stupid people are stupid” isn’t exactly putting you up there with George Carlin.

          This is exactly the problem South Park has; the only “commentary” they’re actually willing to commit to is “everyone sucks”. This is neither helpful, nor in any way actually accurate.

          As the saying goes, if everywhere you go smells like dogshit, check your shoes.