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

291–300 of 365 posts

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

#291

Post by munk-a »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #279
munk-a wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

So I generally agree with what you're saying, but I don't know if that makes enough of a difference, the US has more checks and balances than China but China does have checks and balances[1] and the US's isn't perfect - is the Rule of Law something that switches from off to on somewhere between those two points?

I really don't disagree that China's government is crap, but things aren't black and white, all peoples everywhere are struggling for a good balanced government and pushing back against oppressive governments - that said in China, while people are disappeared, there is a general rule of law for the general populace... Normal folks can get by with a decent orderly life, it's constrained and they do lack a lot of freedoms Americans enjoy, but I would draw a stark contrast between living there and Cambodia, Pakistan, Venezuela or Russia - those are countries where law doesn't rule and personal safety is no guarantee.

As an aside - oh look at this neat thingy[2] a rule of law ranking - I had no idea it existed.

1. In theory, at least, the communist party appoints the chairman - a number of seats within this representative board are freely elected, though some are essentially super delegates that get a guaranteed seat. More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Communist_...

2. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...

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

#292

Post by AcerbicZero »

andrepd wrote: post #233
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I google privilege definition google tells me 'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. "education is a right, not a privilege"' Obviously whoever wrote that should be penalized because they mucked it up with their example, if privilege is a special right then how is education a right not a privilege? But anyway, a privilege is something that is understood…

>Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed. A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with…

Close, but not quite. In a state of nature (natural state) you absolutely have the right to free speech, among many other natural rights which are innate to you. You simply lack the guarantee of the ability to exercise that right when in a state of nature.

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

#293

Post by landryraccoon »

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?

> 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 China elected Xi in a free and fair election, if they developed faster than light travel and clean fusion power then everything would definitely be ok!

But here in the real world I'd like to hear the story of this hypothetical Chinese lady who got a phone call, let alone a lawyer. Was she rich and a well connected communist party official? Or more likely this is just a made up happy fantasy, like warp drives?

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

#294

Post by corodra »

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.

"You're an asshole." That's protected as free speech and is recognizably known as an opinion.

"Your carrots gives people AIDS." Is slander/libel and not protected by free speech. That can be taken as fact and can have consequences to the grower, if the accuser lacks evidence. For fuck's sake, we have anti-vaxxers and measles is coming back due to people making stupid ass claims. If there is evidence and the courts say the accuser was acting in good faith with information they truly thought was true, they may pass on penalties, depending on the situation. Otherwise, if it's bullshit evidence, free speech won't protect you and yo' ass shall burn.

Now freedom of religion and freedom of speech do spar with each other. But it depends on the situation. Mormons say that alcohol is a ticket to hell... a sin... or some shit. If they keep that crap to their own little group, generally no one cares. That also plays into the right to assemble. If they parade around in bars yelling at people that alcohol is a sin/whatever... well, A. trespassing, B. potential harassment, C. I think potential slander or some other form of loss of revenue for the bar. D. Don't live in a fucking mormon town, you idiot.

You can tell a politician that they're an asshole or their policy is stupid and they should feel bad about that. The gov cannot do dick all to you. An opinion on policy or the gov in general is protected. But you can't say a politician is a child murderer without ACTUAL proof. Youtube "research" into the lizard people taking over the planet doesn't count.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be a cunt to society because you're some childish edge lord. If you really don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't vote either.

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

#295

Post by kevingadd »

umvi wrote: post #106

I don't get the Winnie the Pooh meme. Is that a real thing Chinese people get upset about?

A video game and its publisher both got completely shut down in China over a small reference to the meme hidden in some art:

https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/2187566/hit-taiwane...

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/3/20681075/devotion-china-cen...

An entire company permanently shut down! The CN government takes it seriously.

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

#296

Post by corodra »

journalctl wrote: post #285
corodra wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, hey, homie. I've been discussing that it's been going on here on HN and arguing against some apologists for the communist regime in China. Shove it.

The point to that statement, instead of trying to use this as a situation where America is to blame, because it always is, let's stick to the discussion at hand with China and their CURRENT atrocities. Because no country is innocent, no country is heaven sent. We're all trying to live in a world where this shit doesn't happen anymore. If we just look around and go "Well you're ancestors did this!" "And your ancestors did that first!", we're going to get no where.

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

#297

Post by sgt101 »

munk-a wrote: post #244
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

And so taking a stand like this is a privilege for those with status - a dude working in a newspaper stand wouldn't get away with this - but Trey Stone & Matt Parker have survived the worst the Scientologists could throw at them... they'll weather this one or, if China decides to throw pressure at ComedyCentral or whoever their corporate overloads are, then they can be ready to greet the Streisand effect. I applaud t…

I expect that they need their self respect a lot more than they need the Chinese market. What will they do with another $10m each? or $100m... they don't strike me as G5 and coke fellas... Maybe more divorces?

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

#298

Post by AcerbicZero »

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.

You're conflating the existence of a right, with the freedom to exercise that right. Just because a government/society/group/etc infringes upon your ability to exercise your natural right does not mean it doesn't exist. The concept that the rights of the individual are derived from the individual is the basis for a lot of classical liberalism/enlightenment thinking, which in turn is the basis for most of today's modern governments.

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

#299

Post by bryanrasmussen »

andrepd wrote: post #233
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I google privilege definition google tells me 'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. "education is a right, not a privilege"' Obviously whoever wrote that should be penalized because they mucked it up with their example, if privilege is a special right then how is education a right not a privilege? But anyway, a privilege is something that is understood…

>Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed. A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with…

Ok, well I put my kid to sleep and am still up so I guess I'll answer this.

I did not say that there was A priori, in a natural state, a right of free speech. I said what the American conception of rights is generally regarded as being - some support for my claims https://www.docsoffreedom.org/student/readings/equal-and-ina... https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history - many other articles on same subject available and should be easy to find.

Aside from that one can easily determine that the authors of the bill of rights were quite clear in almost every instance not to "grant rights". For example in the first amendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." most people say the First Amendment grants Freedom of Speech, but anyone with a decent grasp of the English language would have to say that it only makes it illegal to limit that freedom.

Now of course I am myself not quite happy with assuming inalienable rights to exist, it seems more reasonable in some ways to assume they were fought for or granted, that they came from somewhere and are not natural to humans. On the other hand I am at least as reluctant to assume a natural state and that I can know what rights, if any, might apply to that state.

So if you can expound on your knowledge of this natural state, please do so. I merely expounded on what the generally understood American conception of rights was, and did not presume to claim to know the truth of that conception.

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

#300

Post by wbl »

munk-a wrote: post #249
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.

I agree it's a bad idea to crush the will of the people under our feet and force them to bend to our will - which is why I completely disagree with your statement. I dislike China's government but I feel like America, with it's track record, really shouldn't start talking about how nice regime change would be. For the time being, while the government may be autocratic, it is enforcing it's law and you'd be hard press…

Disappearing a bookseller with no trial and imprisoning complainers is not the rule of law.
Post reply on HN