111–120 of 248 posts
i wonder if China has copied SP and if so how they would portray the USA. Has anything been made like this? And is it just as funny?
I don't know think the PRC guys have much of a sense of humor. But the Taiwanese animators are hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4G3lPPWm6qtoWtRk4vyGwg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're also a big proponent of bothsideism. For some topics that makes sense (because there are two legitimate or legitimately absurd sides). For other topics it just pollutes discourse by elevating an illegitimate side.
I appreciate that a lot of their commentary is about how people can get carried away, regardless of how good/bad the character's ideals or intention are. A fair bit of pop media really turns me off by how hard it tries to force-feed me fashionable political opinions that I already agree with . Most of my political disagreements with people come down more to ends vs means, implementation details, unintended consequenc…
I tried to watch the episode. It's not blocked here in Thailand, but the site throws up a "Due to copyright and other issues...blah blah blah...targets for US audiences...blah blah blah. So what's with that?
I can go to the channel that has the rights to broadcast south park in canada and watch it there (much.com) - maybe you can do the same?
Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures. China is a huge market for Paramount's films. Paramount has previously explored a 49% sale to China's Wanda Group, and they currently have extensive financial backing from the Shanghai Film Group Corp.[2] If they wanted to, it's well within the purview of the CCP to apply pressure to Paramount's ability to finance its films or distribute those fil…
Why does South Park need Comedy Central anymore? Just distribute it online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree: GP reads like spun/machine-generated content.
"machine-generated" because my English mode still cold. I'm learning English with RNN, it takes awhile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-censorship is still censorship. If these companies crater to the least common denominator, then free speech in the West is also doomed. We can't allow that to happen. Putting profits ahead of everything else is a sure way to go broke because it sacrifices quality and every other good for the sake of short-term profit. We saw Disney do this with Star Wars, trying to pander to Asian audiences and failing miserably…
If it is more profitable for free speech to be doomed, then it will be doomed.
Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures. China is a huge market for Paramount's films. Paramount has previously explored a 49% sale to China's Wanda Group, and they currently have extensive financial backing from the Shanghai Film Group Corp.[2] If they wanted to, it's well within the purview of the CCP to apply pressure to Paramount's ability to finance its films or distribute those fil…
Please explain like I'm five. What's the social status of SP in the USA? E.g. what do Chomsky, Obama, Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Fox news think about it? How come there are no rage firings because of it?
The paper found that Americans' views could be typified into three major groups. About 25% are traditional or devoted conservatives, 8% are progressive activists, and the other 67% are an "exhausted majority." The exhausted majority was typified as Americans who don't belong to either extreme, and "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation."
And most of everybody had a disdain for political correctness that transcends politics, race, and even age. The following think political correctness is a problem in the country:
- 80% of the general population
- 74% of those aged 24-29
- 79% of those under age 24
- 75% of blacks
- 79% of whites
- 82% of Asians
- 87% of Hispanics
- 88% of American Indians
There's a reasonable argument that perhaps people don't agree on what "political correctness" means, and indeed the poll part of the study did not define it for participants. However, the study engaged in various focus groups as well as individual interviews and found that individuals were "concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them."
The reason this is important is that a lot of the political correctness stuff is carried out in domains that are in no way, shape, or form representative of the general population of America. This [2] poll from Pew lays out social media usage in the US. Twitter is a good, and surprising example. Only 22% of Americans use Twitter. And of those that do, 58% use it less often than once per day. Yet I think it goes without saying that our 8% from above are nearly all on Twitter and using it constantly. This results in an extremely misleading image of American society in general if you go in with the assumption that platforms like Twitter are even vaguely representative.
The point of this is that cancel culture not American culture. It's something propagated by a vocal minority on deeply unrepresentative platforms. By contrast South Park has been an American institution for more than two decades. And it continues to draw millions of viewers per episode. Cancel culture largely targets individuals who are unable to defend themselves or those for whom the "progressive activist" group makes up a significant share of their potential influence. For South Park, this couldn't be further from the case.
[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo...
[2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...
I wonder at what point would corporations consider it a risk too big. Any comment can trigger the Chinese, it’s hard to gauge what they find insulting, since according to them all their neighbors and the west has humiliated them in the past. The volatility to the bottom line jsut isn’t worth it.
Not only the Chinese, I assure you.
Nationalistic flamebait like this is a bannable offense on HN—not to mention racial/national slurs. The users who upvoted and (later) vouched for this comment have abused this site by doing so.
People routinely accuse us of being somehow pro-China or secret communists for moderating HN this way, but that's not true at all. We don't like bullies or mobs, and any time that dynamic springs up here—which unfortunately is all the time, this being the internet—we instinctively take the opposite side. What's surprising to me is how so many users, who I'm sure are decent people, engage in that kind of thing. I know it's largely a matter of their background but users with the opposite background also belong here, and deserve better.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21188577.
I wonder at what point would corporations consider it a risk too big. Any comment can trigger the Chinese, it’s hard to gauge what they find insulting, since according to them all their neighbors and the west has humiliated them in the past. The volatility to the bottom line jsut isn’t worth it.
> Any comment can trigger the Chinese Not only the Chinese, I assure you. Nationalistic flamebait like this is a bannable offense on HN—not to mention racial/national slurs. The users who upvoted and (later) vouched for this comment have abused this site by doing so. People routinely accuse us of being somehow pro-China or secret communists for moderating HN this way, but that's not true at all. We don't like bullies…