Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 365 posts

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

#281

Post by Konnstann »

andrepd wrote: post #250
Konnstann wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody with good enough lawyers can tell a cop to piss off, you might even get the cop on a hate crime if you're non-white. I've got the same amount of anecdotes to suggest the opposite. My dad got pulled over because he didn't stop at a stop sign for the mandatory 3-mississippi in our neighborhood, and no lack of melanin in his skin would have been enough to prevent the ticket.

Yes, watching the news these past few years we can totally see that cops get convicted for "hate crime" every single day . They shoot innocent, unarmed men to death as a matter of course, and get off with a few months' suspension, but somehow you think you can charge a cop for a "hate crime" for getting pulled over (conveniently concluding then that it's the black folk who are "privileged").

No my point was that wealth supersedes race in police interactions. Look at the Jussie Smollett case, you can definitely stir up some anti-police sentiment if you're rich enough. The conclusion isn't that black folk are privileged, it's that if you are well-off and look the part, race will play a much lower role when you get pulled over.

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

#282

Post by munk-a »

disease wrote: post #277
munk-a wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The US Government publicly shamed her over her post - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86987479808781926... this lead to hardships for her[1] that I believe aren't debated?

As per statements by the white house[2] and other branches[3] that twitter account is an official channel of US Government policy, I think this is reasonable and generally accepted[4].

1. https://ew.com/news/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-br...

2. https://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-st...

3. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-...

4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/07/11/tru...

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

#283

Post by jldugger »

ckpcw wrote: post #205
j8014 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with free speech. If I grow some vegetables and sell them and you come along and start advertising that they are poisonous with 0 evidence you can be sued by me for damages.

It really is about free speech, though. What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous? 'free speech' also includes zero-evidence claims, and even lies! Freedom of speech == Freedom of fake news.

> What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous?

Why use hypotheticals when we can use real examples? Kosher and hilal have opinions on food and cleanliness, and no lawsuits to my knowledge. That stuff is like double first amendment protected, considering it's both speech and religion.

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

#284

Post by trhway »

jeffdavis wrote: post #208
trhway wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Privileges are things granted to you, often conditionally, by someone else. Using the word often sounds quasi-religious to me: "Thank Privilege for this meal we are about to eat, and our safe home, ...". most people didn't do anything do get whatever rights they are enjoying - they were just born into these rights while many other people don't have those rights. Pretty much definition of privilege. > Calling our rig…

Rights can, in theory, be had by everyone. Privileges are inherently for a select few. Wouldn't the world be wonderful if all 7 billion people had free speech?

>Rights can, in theory, be had by everyone. Privileges are inherently for a select few.

when it is had by everyone then it is a right. Until that it is a privilege. For example voting in US was in the past a privilege of white male property owners, and today it is pretty much a right (if one discounts voter suppression state laws, etc).

Another example - free speech can, in theory, be had by everyone in Russia or China, yet it is really far from everybody having it there. Thus it isn't a right there despite that "can, in theory".

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

#285

Post by journalctl »

corodra wrote: post #259
journalctl wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, uh, you could own people a few generations ago. There are women alive today who remember not being able to vote. To call that “some difficulty expressing their rights” is remarkably tone-deaf. And no, the courts usually sided with the majority (c.f. Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.)

Name a country that's never done it. Because I think taking criticism from them would be appropriate. Or at least someone who hasn't had an asshole ancestor in the last, oh... I don't know... 3 generations? Let's just discuss what your ancestors did to my ancestors! Because holy crap! That'll definitely fix our current day problems! No better cure for the present than to yell at each other about things that happened…

I’ll be sure to remind the millions of Muslims in Chinese concentration camps that they can rest easy knowing that other countries also sometimes commit atrocities.

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

#286

Post by AnthonyMouse »

andrepd wrote: post #235
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the opposite -- not every right is a privilege. Some are inalienable and their denial is a human rights violation rather than merely an instance of economic disparity.

That a right is "inalienable" is a construction such as any other right or privilege. A social construction enforced by solid institutions. You only have the "right to life" (however inalienable you think it to be) because there is a whole system of laws, courts, government, law enforcement, that grants you that right in practice.

Everything is a social construction. Does that mean we should descend into relativistic nihilism, or that authoritarianism is acceptable merely because it exists?

Human rights are defended when we as humans refuse to stand idly by while they are violated. Which is why it's still important to identify the lines that are not to be crossed.

Muddling the fundamental safeguards that allow a free society to exist with the petty jealousy of who has a bigger house is only a boon to the despots who would tear those safeguards down.

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

#287

Post by jldugger »

pinkfoot wrote: post #253
Meai wrote: post #13

In my opinion this fight is important but futile at the level of individual companies. The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections should make free speech a requirement in their trade negotiations. Even with Europe, we should not get certain tariff improvements until free speech goes into law that deserves the name and is equivalent to the US level of free speech.

Bollocks. 78% of American citizens live in the 25+ states of the union that have passed actual laws that will punish you or your company if you even so much as voice boycotting a particular foreign country. You really need to get out more often. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/9/18172826/bd...

Skimmed the article, didn't see any mention of the supreme court -- have these laws passed judicial review?

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

#288

Post by Konnstann »

andrepd wrote: post #268
Konnstann wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "substantive objective measurements" don't even need to be debunked, the article does that itself. My example wasn't to illustrate "no discrimination doesn't happen" it was to illustrate the fact that maybe, the relative wealth of different geographic areas, combined with racial demographics and crime rates, could have more to do with policing practices that JUST skin color. I specifically didn't bring up any of…

The data shows that income is by far the biggest factor, but also that it is not the only factor. Income is the biggest differentiator, and therefore the priority issue to tackle, but "skin color" discrimination does happen and it is a factor to explain these disparities. These are two separate things that are important to remember.

I agree. My belief is that the racial biases of the police don't come from beliefs about racial supremacy, but due to the patterns that emerge due to the income factor. If we can solve the first issue, the biases will disappear. This is supported by the fact that the race of the officer doesn't appear to be a factor in police violence cases. It seems, to me at least, that removing the root of the bias would be vastly more effective than trying to instill counter-biases.

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

#289

Post by 99_00 »

jimclegg wrote: post #201
throwaway_bad wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes we forget that getting disappeared in china is not just a meme. Police will show up to arrest you just for posting comments online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOAbkTs_a4

Looks similar to what happens in the UK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF_rvhsGjBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Xr4nfKsWk Wonder what she typed.

Whataboutism

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Why does most of the Chinese use "whataboutism" to defend their country?

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-most-of-the-Chinese-use-whata...

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

#290

Post by jdm2212 »

munk-a wrote: post #282
disease wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The US Government publicly shamed her over her post - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86987479808781926... this lead to hardships for her[1] that I believe aren't debated? As per statements by the white house[2] and other branches[3] that twitter account is an official channel of US Government policy, I think this is reasonable and generally accepted[4]. 1. https://ew.com/news/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-dona…

If you don't like Donald Trump's conduct in office (I don't, incidentally) you and millions of others can organize and likely prevent him from getting reelected. If you don't like Xi Jinping's conduct in office...
Post reply on HN