Reading involving the shits damns and fags
Paper type: Science,
Words: 833 | Published: 03.11.20 | Views: 47 | Download now
Language can be a incredibly multifaceted point. With different meanings, associations and contexts, different bring their particular perspective in the relationship when studying and understanding language. The show Southern region Park uses language in a manner that is intended to enhance the restrictions of social norms and political correctness, especially in the instance “The Farreneheit Word. ” As mentioned in Marcus Schulzke’s (2012) “South Park and the Change of That means, ” vocabulary is not only a strong tool yet also a comfortable one. Though Schulzke makes a strong argument that Southern region Park “explores the treatment of language” while producing clever sociable commentary by making use of extreme and often vulgar vocabulary and images, I believe that South Park’s approach and execution of developing social discourse is too clandestine. Requiring the viewers to see between the immense amount of foul dialect and symbolism in order to identify the producer’s social commentary ends up getting more risky, specifically to new viewers and children, than enlightening (Schulzke 2012, p. 22).
“The Farrenheit Word” and South Park as a whole uses intense and vulgar dialect and symbolism to this extreme the fact that intended cultural commentary may potentially be forgotten by a new viewer. Since someone who had never found South Park, and was not aware of the producer’s aspirations behind this kind of language and imagery ahead of time, I was found of safeguard and diverted by the vulgarity. So much so, I was misguided for the intention of using cultural and politics commentary and more focused on the inappropriate comedies and comments themselves. Schulzke explains that “South Park’s use of awful words can be driven by entertainment of shock” and “The Farreneheit Word” “take[s] a more thoughtful look at language” which he believes can be “among the most sophisticated” of episodes (Schulzke 2012, s. 26-27). Like a first-time viewers, I was much less focused on the delicate underlying comments and more impacted by the “entertainment of shock” caused by the utilization of “the prevalent ‘bad words'” (Schulzke 2012, p. 26). Even though Schulzke addresses his belief that “The Farreneheit Word” should get attention from both students invested in To the south Park and also those considering the transformative power of language, he does not seem to talk about the deserved attention coming from or the notion of a first-time viewer or child (Schulzke 2012, l. 30).
The concept of kids both in Southern Park and watching South Park sets off an interesting conversation as to whether or not this kind of portrayal of youngsters and profane language in tandem is appropriate and effective once communicating the show’s cultural commentary. Although scholars like Schulzke believe this utilization of “bad words” in relation to children teaches all of us real multimedia literacy as well as how to navigate the endless quantity of ‘bullshit’ thrown at us in our ‘Age of Information, ‘ at the same time, showing children employing words such as ‘fag, ‘ ‘shit, ‘ ‘damn, ‘fuck, ‘ ‘asshole’ and other at times offensive terms can set a negative example and set a normal of precisely what is acceptable when it comes to language usage amongst youngsters (Schulzke 2012, p. 26). According to a article through the Johns Hopkins Health Library, “as children grow and develop, they might be easily motivated by what they see and hear, specifically on television” (Television and Children). Therefore a child were to view Southern region Park for a young era, I believe that they can would not be able to fully understand or identify the underlying discourse and they may possibly begin to take after “the children of South Playground, ” who have “often use the word gay as a great insult, inch and perhaps start bluntly phoning people ‘fags, ‘ ‘gay, ‘ ‘assholes’ or various other generally upsetting names used by South Area characters (Schulzke 2012, g. 27). Regarding South Park, the danger comes when a new or young viewer might see an episode just like “The Farreneheit Word” as only a vulgar show because they are as well distracted by crude dialect or are too young to fully understand and recognize the intended discourse.
Even though Schulzke’s debate that South Park makes smart and savvy commentary on today’s social concerns can be authentic, first-time audiences like myself and more youthful viewers is unable to identify the show’s actual commentary and political wit due to the muddiness of the shockingly foul vocabulary and imagery. South Park needs a experienced, invested, long-time and adult viewer who has seen many episodes to ensure their messages to be exposed, and this is why I believe the display is more risky than enlightening. The extreme vocabulary used by child characters applied to perform the social commentary, in fact , distracts the first-time viewer from the real social commentary itself. New viewers and children as well may not quickly read between ‘shits, ‘ damns’ and ‘fags’ and in turn take the display for the surface-level potent and attacking cartoon it appears to be.