This is a pretty obtuse perspective. Fiction can be written for the express purpose of achieving insight. Just because something is fictional or humorous doesn't limit that - it can emphasise it. See - A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift.
I'd hardly call one of the most acclaimed dystopian-bureaucracy films a 'random bit of satire'. If you've not watched and understood it (clearly the latter of that is especially true) I dont think you've any right to claim it's not relevant to anything.
I also understand that it is fiction, and it is exaggerated, and it is highly silly.
It is not a prophecy, it not a guide to reality, it is a silly film by a guy from Monty Python who was annoyed at bureaucracy, a very simple and shared part of human experience.
So why are you criticising someone highlighting annoyance of encroaching bureaucracy referencing a work of fiction that deals with this "shared part of human experience" in a "simple way"?
No one is saying its a 1:1 guide to reality, but as a nightmare vision of a dystopia gripped by unnecessary administrative apparatus, silly or not, it is a work of fiction that takes its root from reality and then makes a farce of it.
There are reasons works like kafkaesque, orwellian, ballardian become part of the lexicon despite all dealing with fictional universes of their own making...
It was just a person, on the internet making a 4 word reference to a famous movie... I don't know why you're intent on endlessly attacking the "lack of insight" from the poster.
I guess you think Monty Python films are just 'silly films' too, completely overlooking the intelligent satire present throughout the entire films, that will be studied and admired as top level satire for generations to come?
It's astonishing to me that you can't seem to grasp how effective fiction is at laying bare (albeit in an exaggerated fashion) the issues present in the real world.
