By Two & Out

Monty Python predicted social media in the 1970s

Apr 20, 2018 | 12:15 PM

NETFLIX recently added a whole host of goodies for Monty Python fans, including live performances and episodes of the original BBC television shows.

Of course, that development meant I had to give Netflix a high priority this week, de-emphasizing other non-essential activities such as sleep and personal hygiene.

As I plowed through the various series, it struck me how accurately Python was, with its hilarious sketches, predicting future human interaction on the all-consuming platforms of social media.

Never mind the “Mr. Hilter” sketch, where poorly-disguised Nazis re-assemble after Nuremberg and run for town council.

Two and Out

PETERS: Keeping people cool ain't what it used to be

May 16, 2025

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: The NDP does it to us again

May 15, 2025

Sound Off

SOUND OFF: Celebrating National Nursing Week

May 14, 2025

That hits a little too close to home with the poorly-disguised Nazis trying to make a comeback in many aspects of North American society today.

In “Silly Walks,” a man applies for a government grant to support and develop his unusual stride.

On social media, everyone believes they deserve recognition and celebration for something unique, even if it is transparently put on.

The famous “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch shows a group of high society aristocrats making increasingly outlandish claims about the hardships they suffered as youth.

The competitive subtext of their reminiscences leads to historical facts such as “growing up in a shoebox in the middle of the road” or “our Dad would cut us in two with a bread knife.”

This plays out on social media all the time, with stories becoming increasingly detached from reality.

Fewer and fewer people will ever verify, but they’re not listening anyway.

But nothing may be a more apt description of social media than the famous “Argument” sketch.

A man pays a service for the opportunity to take part in a five minute squabble.

The beginning of the exchange consists of debate over what actually constitutes an argument.

The professional arguer marks the end of five minutes, then refuses to engage when the customer disputes the accuracy of his timer.

Once the customer pays for another five minutes, the argument resumes, this time over whether the customer actually paid.

It’s nothing but mindless contradiction, and nothing is accomplishment beyond a waste of time and money.

What could be a better illustration of social media than that?