Yik Yak: Discrimination, Stereotyping and Prejudice Today

Scholars Andra Gumbus and Patricia Meglich (2013) argue "discrimination and harassment that were once committed in real time have now moved to the online environment... and can be more damaging and insidious than the face-to-face forms of abuse" (47). Not only is this true about the only environment as a whole, but it is seen glaringly in anonymous messaging board forums such as Rollins' campus favorite, Yik Yak.
The unfortunate truth is that it isn't just a breading ground for misogynistic discourse but many other issues of discrimination, stereotyping, prejudice, harassment and more.
In just one scroll through Yik Yak, chances are you will see something overtly racist, sexists, homophobic and quite possibly discriminating of various minorities. So the question becomes, why are these discourses of harassment more prevalent online, especially in anonymous forums?
My little sister was once the target of online bullying on a platform called Ask.FM. This site was intended to give users a platform for asking questions but of course turned into a tool for much more, such as calling names, and then was used as a tool to segregate her from the rest of her peers.
Now, Yik Yak has become prevalent on college campus' and while you cannot target individuals in an anonymous fashion on this site, it is possible to discriminate whole groups of people, which is often what it does.

In this case it is seen as a tool in discriminating African Americans and has created a very racists online community.

And one of the worsts parts about the racism that is overtly communicated anonymously is that instead of individuals challenging it, they often play off of one another, again anonymously further perpetuating racism in our society.

And racism isn't the only type of discrimination or terrible ideologies that it advances. Women are slut shamed and misogyny continues, as does patriarchy throughout America. Men are applauded for their sexual encounters with many women while women are scrutinized and stereotyped as sluts, whores and labeled as worthless. In a world where someone is shamed for having to buy a pregnancy test, young girls and women world wide are choosing self-harming methods and resorting to fear, because regardless of what circumstance got you there, can a women really not buy a pregnancy test without her morals and self worth being questioned? And since when do others get to justify what one wears in doing so? Why should it matter?

And aside from sexist and racist comments, stereotyping persists towards other minorities as well. While this Yak about the Asian is indeed racist, it plays to further stereotypes of how Asian dissent is supposedly more academic and much smarter than your average joe. Not to mention homophobic slurs and comments that are very common on this highly controversial platform as well.

So my question is, why aren't people challenging this platform and instead just playing off of it? Do the youth and young adults who are using this platform simply too naive to see what it is cultivating? When is enough enough and how do we shut sites such as this down for good?

Gumbus, Andra and Patricia Meglich. 2013. "Abusive Online Conduct: Discrimination and Harassment in Cyberspace." Journal of Management Policy and Practice 14 (5): 47-56. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1503083505?accountid=13584.

The Carnivalesque Approach: T.V. Episodes Vs. Advertising

South Park's creators don't simply seek to challenge and discredit dominant cultural norms that make us laugh in almost a nervous ignorance at the enlightenment and critique of what we've accepted as fact or normal for such a long time, they also challenge any other opposition. 
You may be asking, why? Isn't opposition to our cultural institutions what they want? Don't they want individuals to think clearly and freely from the ideologies that have bound us? Yes... but where opposition rests, and never turns to action is where media opposition often fails. The South Park episodes don't simply lay the issues out on the table for the viewer to dissect, they tell us why we need to care, they attack those that don't challenge ideologies and those that enforce them. They are purposeful in their method of using this television show as not only a place for laughter, but also a place of knowledge, enlightenment, questioning and potential opposition.
The problem is, not all media sources of oppositional culture are successful at making the audience really think and then take action, especially long term. 

This video, by the FCKH8 [fuck hate] campaign uses a carnivalesque approach to one of our societies deepest social constructions of sexism and the ideological norm of patriarchy, but what it doesn't really do is further questions opposition to these issues thus far. Sure we can laugh at the little girls' cuss words and attitudes, and while the message they promote is true, it just falls a bit short, perhaps partially because of time constraints and the nature of this video as an advertisement (buying t-shirts at the end? not that helpful in the overall fight against harmful ideologies). So the question becomes, is this carnivalesque approach full or bright popping colors, ha-ha moments of satirical and chaotic fast paced discourse a big enough challenge to the dominant ideologies of our culture? 
Probably not. It might be a step in the right direction, but unlike South Park episodes' which provide background, more in depth critiques AND aesthetic visual pleasure, short advertisements like the one above are fleeting and not nearly as developed. 
Where South Park has strength with it's dedicated audience and followers, and thorough plot lines that illuminate, critique, damage and react to social problems, smaller oppositional efforts like these, do not have such a promising outcome. 

Theall, Donald F. 1999. “The Carnivalesque, the Internet and Control of Content: Satirizing Knowledge, Power and Control.” Continuum 13 (2): 153-164. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10304319909365789#.VSLoD5TF9xt

The Book of Mormon: Contradictory Blasphemy on Broadway

It's interesting to consider how certain discourse, created by the same individuals, is sometimes challenged and ultimately censored, and sometimes it is not. But what's even more interesting to think about is the question: Why? 
When speaking about Trey Parker and Matt Stone's success in the creation of both South Park and The Book of Mormon the Musical, the two tackle topics that most are too afraid to take about. They have a knack for making people uncomfortable with their use of satire, irony and often blasphemous scripts, but at the same time, it always makes people laugh. 
Previously, Muslims were rioting over the portrayal of Muhammed in cartoons and the pair decided to use this conflict as a plot line for one of their South Park episodes, but comedy central told them not to do so and claimed "religious tolerance" as their reasoning. 

As you can see, they did it anyway- gaining much criticism along the way. Yet truthfully, it seems everyone is just a little bit scared about what happens if religion, or any other sensitive social construction, ideology or topic is satirized for what it really is. But not Parker and Stone. 
So this is what they do; they challenge the norm and in the process are trying to see what they can get away with, which is exactly what they did with The Book of Mormon. 
The difference this time is no one told them they're musical was too radical or needed to be censored, it was praised and applauded nation wide.
SO, what's the difference?
Poking fun at one of our own national religions is acceptable and laughable, but those elsewhere is too much of a threat and sensitivity?  
Is it possible that the state is enforcing it's censorship power as a response to fear, and primarily as a reaction to the context of how the Other responds to our media; our media as it pertains to the United States in which it is a culture of its own. Could it be related to Zizek's theory that the "terror is there, not here," so we are not nearly as concerned with what our own citizens think?
Do we censor media in fear or how those outside of the United States will feel about our media more highly than those on our own turf? Or are the state's contradictions simply a power play based on convenience that whatever is done based on a case by case situation when it best fits them? Food for thought...

Puddington, Arch and Christopher Walker. 2010. "SAYING THE UNSAYABLE: Revisiting International Censorship." World Affairs173 (4): 75-83. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/822629074?accountid=13584.