Anyway, the episode ends with Mr. Hankey going to Springfield. It then says, "#cancelTheSimpsons" instead of "#cancelSouthPark'' as used in previous previews for this season. It's a very clever setup. We could have used more of the boys in this. It's still watchable. I'm still mad they haven't addressed the MeToo hashtag. ***
However, the main storyline didn't work for me. Parker and Stone tackled too many things to parody and didn't achieve a solid whole. I was literally confused about what they were trying to get across. Were they for, against, or saying this is a grey area? I really couldn't tell.
The main plot of Mr. Hankey tweeting mean comments, while high on ambien, and Kyle subsequent defense was less stellar and where the episode became muddled in my opinion. For one, it seems this is a joke about Rosanne Barr who tweeted about a conspiracy theory that Obama spied on Trump during his campaign. Later, she wrote "It was 2 in the morning and I was ambien tweeting."
Mr. Hankey continually blames his rude comments on ambient, so the connection is quite clear. Additionally Barr lost her show and Hankey lost his position. However, Kyle's defense is the part that is odd. He initially believes comments that Mr. Hankey's tweets are comedy by nature and therefore begins to defend him. Later, there are more tweets which seems like an indefensible position to believe they are intended as comedy and not just insults. They get in a fight and eventually Kyle abandons Mr. Hankey believing him to be an asshole.
Meanwhile, he's shown being considered shit for defending a shitty-person. This felt anti-free speech in that, should one not be able to defend one's right to speak even if one doesn't agree with what is being said? It's as if it's a subtle jab that if you support free speech, it probably means you're a shitty person and want to say shitty things or be an enabler of shitty people. Yet, they could equally just be saying, 'Be careful of who you associate with, due to guilt by association fallacy many people believe in'.
The ending segment where Kyle is shitty and Mr. Hankey is run out seems to be an odd mixed-message. Is the show trying to say we shouldn't defend comedy or edgy comedy? Is the show anti-free speech? The overall message intended is not particularly clear. Furthermore, it would be very hypocritical for the shows authors, who have a character that is literately talking poo and has had giant alien satellites expanding out of characters' arses (literately), to take the stance that crude comedy on twitter is inappropriate. Further, there have been times in South Park's history were critics felt it should be censored for being 'assholes' or 'insensitive'. If being rude means one should be run out of town, how about "Barbara-Strizan-o-vision" was just a running gag for halloween specials indicating Barbara was ugly/scary/etc. It is not insulting though, right Matt and Trey? It's just 'Comedy' not an insult to the lady. There's countless other examples.
Further, if you are bothered by the tweets of say Roseanne Barr or "Mr. Hanky", can one not just hit the block button? unfollow? etc. Would running them out of town really be necessary? (This seems to be the equivalent of banning on Twitter). Did Barr need to lose her show? Couldn't you just...not watch it...if it bothers you? Employ self censorship rather than take things people enjoy away from them because you don't enjoy it? This last sentence seems in exact opposite of the PC-Baby subplot. So, muddled, mixed messages.
Finally, since Mr. Hankey is/was a public official, are they implying this ruleset should only apply to people in office but not everyday joes? Saying nothing of audience or reach.