That said, there's still a difference between "I'm shocked, shocked I say! Everybody come join me in telling me how good I am for being shocked!" (both major dominant sides do this today), and actual shock. All of your examples are the former. I'm not sure there much left for the latter.
Later edit: I'm an audience the shock artists would love to "shock", and my parents are nominally their exact target, and let me tell you that if my father woke up one day and read that an artist had literally crucified himself unto literal death in Times Square, he still probably wouldn't be "shocked" in any sense the artist would have been looking for. Maybe conservatives in the 50s could live in a bubble, and I do mean only maybe (many of them were in a vicious war, after all) since I didn't live then, but I know for a fact today that "the masses" are already used to swimming in a culture they don't own.
Further, upon more reflection: "The masses" don't respect the shock artists today. It's hard to imagine how to shock people who don't respect you. Also, if you examine the theory of why the artists are trying to be shocking in the first place (in a nutshell, turning conservatives into liberals by "shocking" them out of their "comfortable" world or something), it's pretty difficult to draw a sensible cause-to-effect line on the whole theory anyhow. Given that one of the few scientifically-well-established differences between the two cultures is in their reaction to "disgust", stimulating conservative's "disgust" reaction (the usual shock approach) seems more like a way designed to make conservatives more conservative rather than less.