'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology • Hacker News Board

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#271

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #265

SllX wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.

Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It is more about having a divided government. Many democratic societies have a separation between at least two, sometimes three branches of government, allowing for one to check the other. In the USA’s case, the judicial branch interprets law.

China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the official don’t want to enforce (see China’s constitution that with freedom of speech, assembly, and so on...). By definition, this concentration of power is authoritarian, so these things go hand in hand.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#272

Post by jdm2212 » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

jimclegg wrote: post #243

jdm2212 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate issues with China banning memes: 1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances 2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society c…

>A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot. China has mechanisms to change laws but they have to be routed through the proper channels. From what I understand, individuals can complain all they want, as long as they don't organize outside of these designated channels. This definitely pisses off the % of western governments that use "grassroots" movements…

The only effective way to change laws is to organize. "you can change laws, but you can't organize to do so" is in effect saying you cannot change the laws. And that's by design -- China is an autocracy.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#273

Post by blaser-waffle » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

jimclegg wrote: post #243

jdm2212 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate issues with China banning memes: 1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances 2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society c…

>A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot. China has mechanisms to change laws but they have to be routed through the proper channels. From what I understand, individuals can complain all they want, as long as they don't organize outside of these designated channels. This definitely pisses off the % of western governments that use "grassroots" movements…

To paraphrase Yakov Smirnoff: "USA and Soviet Union have same freedom. In USA I can I can drive to White House and complain about Reagan; in Soviet Russia I can also drive to Kremlin and complain about Reagan."

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#274

Post by chance_state » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #8

peteretep wrote: post #7

There was a time when the fact that they’re Americans would definitely protect their right to do stuff like this, but these days I’d worry that China will invalidate some Ivanka trademarks, and the creators will find themselves under very heavy pressure from above.

From who? Trump?

Do you think he's above using his power to help his daughter's handbag company? Because he isn't.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#275

Post by jdm2212 » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

freeopinion wrote: post #247

jdm2212 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is a country with rule of law enforcing its laws. The other is an autocracy enforcing the whims of the current ruler.

So if the lady in China went down to the police station, called a lawyer, and got released 6 hours later, everything's ok? If the folks in UK got released 2 months later, everything's ok?

Rule of law is not about whether the outcome in a particular case is good or bad, or whether a particular law is good or bad. It's about whether the outcome is arbitrary, and whether you have recourse when the outcome does not align with the law as written. When the state can arrest people and imprison them (or release them) arbitrarily, you don't have rule of law.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#276

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #70

smitty1e wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comedy is threatened by corporations and people assuming the position for tyranny.

Comedy faces a greater threat from the "woke" #metoo crowd at colleges and online than any profit seeking corporate entity.

Truth. Ask Chappelle... "You people are the worst motherfucker's I've tried to entertain in my life!"

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#277

Post by disease » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #251

jdm2212 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate issues with China banning memes: 1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances 2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society c…

The US is hardly perfect... 1. The US has long operated offshore prisons where human rights are routinely abused (though harvesting organs is never a thing I've heard of happening in them) 2. The US routinely silences comedians when they're reported to say something impolite or against the grain - remember Kathy Griffin?

What is your source on the United States government taking action against Kathy Griffin?

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#278

Post by munk-a » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #271

munk-a wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It is more about having a divided government. Many democratic societies have a separation between at least two, sometimes three branches of government, allowing for one to check the other. In the USA’s case, the judicial branch interprets law. China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the offic…

But within the US we observed that the judiciary was hijacked by the congress with their failure to appoint a justice in a timely manner and lately the congress has been acquiescing to the executive - going against prior initiatives and momentum to stay in good political graces owing to the intense cult of personality over the executive.

I think from country to country the amount by which different branches check one another will vary - and I agree that stronger checks leads to a stronger government - I just disagree that this is a black and white issue rather than a grey one.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#279

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #278

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more about having a divided government. Many democratic societies have a separation between at least two, sometimes three branches of government, allowing for one to check the other. In the USA’s case, the judicial branch interprets law. China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the offic…

But within the US we observed that the judiciary was hijacked by the congress with their failure to appoint a justice in a timely manner and lately the congress has been acquiescing to the executive - going against prior initiatives and momentum to stay in good political graces owing to the intense cult of personality over the executive. I think from country to country the amount by which different branches check one…

That is just another part of the check. The executive nominates judges, legislative approves judges, judges then interpret. Ya, it isn’t perfect, but you still have a few judges (Kennedy before and Roberts now) who are independent enough to sometimes do the right thing against their ideology (judges are mostly independent after being approved, so influence is limited).

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#280

Post by onemoresoop » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #238

onemoresoop wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't they create a version specific to China and censor it all they want? Why do we all have to be bundled in that censorship? Only because it is easier marketing and the are saving on logistics?

If western companies happily comply with their censorship demands, why would they bother?

Yes, it comes down to saving a few $$$ for the next quarter. And when box office decrease due to alienating the western viewers the executives shrug their shoulders and blame it on streaming instead. To be honest, I couldn't care less, the stuff geared to the lowest common denominator for a few continents is not on my watch list anyway, and hasn't been for a long time. The only problem I foresee is on my part, explaining my kid why we won't be watching such and such Disney show.

And I don't mean that I will make sure my kid won't be able to consume such content because it is censored or dubbed down to please Chinese markets, kid's to small to understand, but to the increasingly crappy quality of these shows.