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

321–330 of 365 posts

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

#321

Post by philipov »

jdm2212 wrote: post #320
philipov wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I can predict that almost any interaction with the government will end in my destruction, that is not a sufficient standard of justice. The problem is not that chinese citizens can't predict the behavior of their government.

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

#322

Post by jdm2212 »

philipov wrote: post #321
jdm2212 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I can predict that almost any interaction with the government will end in my destruction, that is not a sufficient standard of justice. The problem is not that chinese citizens can't predict the behavior of their government.

Rule of law is necessary, not sufficient, for justice. You cannot have justice if you do not know what behavior will get you punished, and you cannot know what behavior will get you punished if the government can act arbitrarily with impunity.

Edit in reply to below: the issue in China is precisely that the government's response to criticism is unpredictable. If Xi Jinping criticizes Chinese policy, that means a new policy is now in place. If a random guy on the street criticizes Chinese policy... maybe he'll be fine? Or maybe not. Depending on where and to whom he says it and how nice public officials are feeling that day.

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

#323

Post by philipov »

jdm2212 wrote: post #322
philipov wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can predict that almost any interaction with the government will end in my destruction, that is not a sufficient standard of justice. The problem is not that chinese citizens can't predict the behavior of their government.

Rule of law is necessary, not sufficient, for justice. You cannot have justice if you do not know what behavior will get you punished, and you cannot know what behavior will get you punished if the government can act arbitrarily with impunity. Edit in reply to below: the issue in China is precisely that the government's response to criticism is unpredictable. If Xi Jinping criticizes Chinese policy, that means a new…

And the problem with China is not that it's lacking rule of law, but that the laws are unjust. It is easy to predict what will happen to you if you criticize the government.

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

#324

Post by munk-a »

jdm2212 wrote: post #290
munk-a wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If I was a Chinese citizen I probably 1. wouldn't be around anymore or 2. not be nearly the same person - I'm quite thankful I grew up in a society that let me read Marx for Beginners[1] at a young age and has allowed me to express myself - I support the HK protestors without any reservations and, even with the oval office being as it is, I think the US's government is far more fair and held to account than China's - still, it is counterproductive to the freedoms of America to constantly exaggerate those freedoms and hold patriotism over honesty. America may be a shining city on a hill but up close it's pretty clear to see the parts that are tarnished - we can work to fix those issues if we accept that they are issues, or we can insist there are no issues and let those hard fought for freedoms get taken away.

1. It's pretty hilarious and approachable for young minds, here's an archive version for the curious https://archive.org/details/MarxForBeginners-English

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

#325

Post by stebann »

throwaway_bad wrote: post #47
dekhn wrote: post #39

I have to say, this is really the only way to respond to China when it comes to their no-humor censors: just come out and mock them. They don't really have any way to reply. One wonders if there is an entire revolutionary class within China sharing South Park videos for freedom.

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

Oh and in Argentina Pro-US-"Freedom" Party make disappear protesters or poor people claiming for their rights, and I don't see that in CNN or in Twitter. If you post something in Twitter against the actual administration they ban you from using some services or even finding a job.

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

dTal wrote: post #63
olalonde wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and the idea that Chinese citizens see themselves as oppressed. As crazy as it may seem to us, they're overwhelmingly supportive of their government.

If they weren't, how on Earth would you know? Being anything other than publicly "overwhelmingly supportive of the government" gets you killed. I believe many Chinese citizens are aware that their situation is not ideal ("oppressed" is probably not quite the right word), because I believe at least some subset of Chinese citizens are not brainwashed morons and any idiot can see what's going on. If they really had over…

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by unqueued »

dekhn wrote: post #39

I have to say, this is really the only way to respond to China when it comes to their no-humor censors: just come out and mock them. They don't really have any way to reply. One wonders if there is an entire revolutionary class within China sharing South Park videos for freedom.

Back in I think 2011, Pakistan threw up their hands and gave up censoring the Internet, because trolls has so inundated popular websites with banned memes. This was during a conference where the prime minister was trying to lure investors and show how modern Pakistan was, while all of YouTube and Twitter had just been blocked.

Censorship is an up hill battle. It is way easier to defy them than it is for them to block us.

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

#328

Post by gamblor956 »

threwawasy1228 wrote: post #232
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.

This is such a ridiculous framing, so in your opinion by this logic, if Xi was democratically elected by a free and fair election, and then proceeded to ban memes via a legislative branch that would be perfectly fine? I think what the UK is doing is equally shameful. This kind of "its ok when the west does it" type of narrative is why when I talk to Chinese students about censorship issues they can consistently point…

This is such a ridiculous framing, so in your opinion by this logic, if Xi was democratically elected by a free and fair election, and then proceeded to ban memes via a legislative branch that would be perfectly fine?

You've just described India under Modi...

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

#329

Post by azangru »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200
azangru wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights. But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family? > You may have been Lucky to have…

> But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family? The reason this framing is despicable is that rights and privileges are not the same. Being able to afford a Lexus is a privilege. Not everyone has i…

You speak of privilege as an absolute category; I was thinking in more relative terms. If you take two people, of whom one has access to clean water and the other doesn’t — wouldn't you say that the first is in a more privileged position than the second?

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

#330

Post by mikestew »

Konnstann wrote: post #281
andrepd wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not parent, but thanks for the reply. In response to my own sibling comment I say, "hmm, I apparently was not hearing you right."
Post reply on HN