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

311–320 of 365 posts

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

#311

Post by SomeOldThrow »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #273
jimclegg wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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."

Complaining about Reagan didn’t do much to protect us anyway, we gave our power away willingly.

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

#312

Post by chrisweekly »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #57
chrisweekly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without touching on the ethical / moral aspect of stereotyping or disrespecting large groups of people, I'm curious if "racist" is the right adjective here, vs some other term that relates more to nationality vs biological ethnicity?

The way South Park employs xenophobic/racist/sexist tropes is interesting - they are either so silly that its really hard for anyone to take offense, or they spread it around so much - no one group is ever singled out - and no one group is ever spared. That gives us all permission to laugh at them, and laugh at ourselves, when the time comes. Or... the portrayal isn't actually targeting group of the character embodyi…

Agreed! FTR I wasn't accusing SP of being *ist, rather looking for something like "xenophobia", as applied toward people from a particular nation; in this case, perhaps "Sinophobia"?

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

#313

Post by freeopinion »

landryraccoon wrote: post #293
freeopinion wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ri…

The video of the Chinese lady is scary.

It also scares me that so many people are willing to say, "At least we have the rule of law unlike that video." If the end result is exactly the same, that's scary.

But also, as long as somebody can show you horrendous atrocities happening elsewhere, you are willing to let minor local infractions of the rule of law stream by? Just show orphanages getting carpet bombed and it's not a big deal if we mistreat immigrants. Show immigrants getting mistreated and it's ok if we arrest homeless for sleeping in the park.

When I was young, Germans were bad guys. Then Russians. Then Chinese or North Koreans. Back to Russians. Or Mexicans. Or Canadians. Fight for justice in Africa. Feel safe and secure in your own benevolent democracy.

Watch two videos of the exact same behavior and excuse one of them because it is happening in a place that practices the rule of law. Condemn the other because of their voting system.

Edit: the point is that neither is ok.

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

#314

Post by vkou »

zarro wrote: post #221
vkou wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every artist that cares about mass market appeal has to self-censor, lest they not offend a large market segment. That is the point this episode of South Park very deliberately avoids talking about. Nobody's stopping them from creating art. Really is, unfortunately, putting constraints on which kind of art is going to get bankrolled by millions of dollars of say, Hollywood money. Those constraints have always been th…

The point of debate is not about self-censuring in order to get bankrolled, the point is about contesting using the law to actually coerce someone from creating what they want, which is what China does, and the potential influence of that mentality onto our culture (and the slippery slope to law).

Yes, it is. It is exactly that.

It's just that phrasing the issue as:

"My artistic freedom to make whatever art I want, AND to make millions of dollars in China is being infringed upon by China's domestic policies."

Doesn't sound particularly noble...

The law does not compel you to censor your art. This self-censorship is driven by greed, not legislature. If you aren't interested in selling in China, their laws on speech have no impact on you.

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

#315

Post by tdb7893 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #218
tdb7893 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this distinction isn't widely understood as the definition of privilege. If you look it up in a dictionary privileges you'll see a lot of definitions where privileges are defined as a special case of rights so they are most definitely not mutually exclusive https://www.dictionary.com/browse/privilege

That's just reinforcing the point. Privilege is a special "right" rather than a universal one that should be held by everyone, something like the right to be called doctor (held only by someone with a doctorate) as opposed to the right to due process (which should be held by everyone). Due process is a human right in a way that having a title is not.

Due process should be accessible to everyone but until that's actually the case it's still a privilege of the people who have it. The fact that other people should have it doesn't mean it's not a privilege to the people that do.

(It's still a right by the way, as I said it can be both)

Edit: Anyway, I don't feel the need to argue this since it's just a semantic argument but the general thesis is that I found your narrow definition of privilege to be surprising compared to how I've experienced people using it but English differs over geography so idk.

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

#316

Post by fiter »

ozzyman700 wrote: post #159
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, I'm gonna flag all your propagandistic bullshit comments.

Your choice! Workers of the world unite!

The need for a revolutionary vanguard makes it clear who is really uniting: the revolutionary vanguard. Whether that unity helps workers is secondary.

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

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

#317

Post by trhway »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #309
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…

I think you're conflating the exercise of rights with the existence of those rights. "Being born "into" these rights" is close to accurate, but misses the point. You (and everyone else) are born with a basic set of natural rights which exist regardless of how much or how little you can/do exercise them. People have been struggling for hundreds of years to avoid having those rights infringed upon, not to "create" them…

> are born with a basic set of natural rights which exist regardless of how much or how little you can/do exercise them

There is no such thing as the "natural rights" except may be for the right to die (and even that is contested by many governments (and super-government-powerful organizations of the past like the Church was for example)). Any rights are created as a result of an [usually temporary] equilibrium between various participating forces established and supported by violence or a credible threat of a such.

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

#318

Post by philipov »

jdm2212 wrote: post #275
freeopinion wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does that mean if the law says the police have arbitrary discretion to decide who to imprison, then the outcomes align with the law as written and you still have rule of law?

How about if the law is written so strictly that everything is an offense, such that it's impossible to enforce on everyone, and you choose to not enforce it against people you like? Any case where it is enforced, you can still point to the law and say the outcome aligned with it.

And what if the law unequivocally says a certain group of people are slaves, is this justified simply because the outcome is not arbitrary and there is a codified rule of law? Whether the law is right or wrong does matter.

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

#319

Post by mlillie »

dba7dba wrote: post #127

Who knew CCP would be able to censor the west with, gulp, the might dollar. The irony.

Americans on any problem: "You've got to vote with your wallet to change the world! That's the spirit of the free market and liberal democracy!"

China votes with wallet

Americans: "This is 'authoritarianism'"

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

#320

Post by jdm2212 »

philipov wrote: post #318
jdm2212 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does that mean if the law says the police have arbitrary discretion to decide who to imprison, then the outcomes align with the law as written and you still have rule of law? How about if the law is written so strictly that everything is an offense, such that it's impossible to enforce on everyone, and you choose to not enforce it against people you like? Any case where it is enforced, you can still point to the law…

The relevant metric is whether you can reliably predict the outcome of almost any interaction with the government. If government actors are constrained by the law, you can reasonably predict what they will do. If the law is just a fig leaf, you won't be able to predict their behavior. No society is entirely autocratic or entirely governed by the rule of law, but they tend to cluster at one end or the other.
Post reply on HN