The creators of the show South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have consistently satirized key subjects and issues that define today’s society. Whether it is through their Broadway hit The Book of Mormon, or episodes of South Park such as “The F Word”, Parker and Stone have brought light to both sides of particular arguments with satirical brilliance. As Martin Schulzke conveys in the article Contentious Language: South Park and the Transformation of Meaning, satire is a difficult genre to master, largely due to the fact that viewers may not understand its intention, let alone the reasons that underlie it (2012). Just as Schulzke argues, I believe that this episode of South Park brilliantly attempts to dissociate the word “fag” with homosexuality.
…show more content…
By acknowledging that the word “fag” will always have a negative connotation, the ability to dissociate being homosexual and therefore a fag is a possibility. As Schulzke says, “a word’s meaning is determined by its use, so meaning can be intentionally changed by adopting new uses” (Schulzke, 2012, p. 25). This episode of South Park provides an example of how this could happen, when the children of South Park convince the mayor to change the meaning of “fag” to only describe the annoying motorcycle …show more content…
The format of each South Park episode follows a similar path: a topic that is relevant in society is generated, the parents and the children of South Park argue about this topic in a provocative manner, and then a child usually provides an intellectual and definitive conclusion on the topic that solves the debate. This episode follows this format to a tee, so it is understandable why someone who views only the first twenty minutes or so to come to a negative conclusion about the overall lesson it is trying to teach. This episode wastes no time in using the word “fag” as a derogatory term, and since we as a society are so quick to associate being a “fag” with being gay, it could be difficult to sit through an entire episode without coming to our own conclusion. By the time the episode provides us with the intellectual and definitive conclusion that the word “fag” shouldn’t be synonymous with being gay, many viewers have already come to their own conclusion on the matter. As Schulzke states, this episode may be uncomfortable for viewers due to its persistent use of a word associated with hate and could be easily misunderstood, but its eventual dissociation of the two words outweighs the potential harm
By acknowledging that the word “fag” will always have a negative connotation, the ability to dissociate being homosexual and therefore a fag is a possibility. As Schulzke says, “a word’s meaning is determined by its use, so meaning can be intentionally changed by adopting new uses” (Schulzke, 2012, p. 25). This episode of South Park provides an example of how this could happen, when the children of South Park convince the mayor to change the meaning of “fag” to only describe the annoying motorcycle …show more content…
The format of each South Park episode follows a similar path: a topic that is relevant in society is generated, the parents and the children of South Park argue about this topic in a provocative manner, and then a child usually provides an intellectual and definitive conclusion on the topic that solves the debate. This episode follows this format to a tee, so it is understandable why someone who views only the first twenty minutes or so to come to a negative conclusion about the overall lesson it is trying to teach. This episode wastes no time in using the word “fag” as a derogatory term, and since we as a society are so quick to associate being a “fag” with being gay, it could be difficult to sit through an entire episode without coming to our own conclusion. By the time the episode provides us with the intellectual and definitive conclusion that the word “fag” shouldn’t be synonymous with being gay, many viewers have already come to their own conclusion on the matter. As Schulzke states, this episode may be uncomfortable for viewers due to its persistent use of a word associated with hate and could be easily misunderstood, but its eventual dissociation of the two words outweighs the potential harm