Description
Watch the videos provided, then write thoughtful responses to the questions below. This should be roughly 500 words or comparable to two pages double spaced. Once complete, use the upload function to submit.
The following two videos both originated with television, though you are watching them on a different medium – the Internet. The first is from the entertainment media. The second is from news media.
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/103645/gingervitus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBOjl8lG9GI
Watch the videos, then think about the following questions and write a thoughtful, roughly 500-word (think two pages double spaced) mini-essay critically analyzing them. While this essay is a personal reaction, strive to do more than simply give your opinion. Delve into the benefits and consequences of your stance and the benefits and consequences of the opposing opinion.
The Scenario
What we have seen here is life imitating art, as a South Park episode led to a “Kick a Ginger” Day event in which children were attacked and bullied. While the news clip is Canadian, the same incident has happened multiple times in American schools.
Although the South Park episode did not advocate violence against redheads, it certainly was the inspiration for these attacks.
Questions:
- In seeking justice for those who were attacked, who do we hold accountable for them?
- Can we legally or morally hold the source (the creators of South Park) responsible?
- While it is tempting to just blame the parents of the attackers, we all know some percentage of children will be the products of poor parenting. Should we give some of the legal and moral blame to those who created the message?
- Does it matter that the South Park episode did not specifically call for attacks on redheads? Would that change your opinion?
- Anyone familiar with South Park probably made sense of the creators’ intent. It was satire, meant to show how ridiculous prejudices are by placing them on an arbitrary group. Does it matter that the creators’ intent differed from how it was received? In holding the source accountable, should we take into account intent or how the message was received?
- Moving beyond South Park, where do you draw the line with regard to holding a speaker accountable? If you are liberal, think of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. At various times, Trump hinted at and even called for attacks on protesters who interrupt his rallies and suggested Second Amendment advocates could take care of Hillary Clinton. If you are conservative, think of the Black Lives Matter movement. Some members have used violent language and suggested illegal acts to further their movement. At what point should Trump or the BLM leaders using violent language be held accountable for actions done by their followers? Does it matter that Trump has said of the Second Amendment comment that it was obviously sarcasm or that many BLM leaders would downplay their remarks as hyperbole? Does their intent matter? Are they accountable for the actions of followers if the followers take the comments literally and act?