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

The Big [Censored] Theory

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#31

Post by RajT88 »

swayvil wrote: post #8
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #2

It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.

It's a deeper level of censorship. Not only will you refrain from thinking about these things in a tolerant light, you will refrain from thinking about these things at all. It chops pieces off reality when you do that. Censorship is amazing. So popular (downvotes anyone?), so casually employed, yet so incredibly destructive.

Indeed. It seems to have had the effect of removing pieces of reality.

I had a conversation once with a Chinese national, about an article about LGBTQ+ people in China.

"There's no Gay people in China"

(me, points at a picture of 2 young Chinese men in the article)

"They're from Hong Kong. There's no Gay people in China."

OK then!

(This was quite a while back, I suspect the same conversation today would play out differently, since the popular opinion is that HK is in fact part of China)

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#33

Post by Jtsummers »

hackeraccount wrote: post #17
jrm4 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not. Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

The argument would be that you can find critical views of the military - just not in a blockbuster movie. The question is why the people making the content in the US and China don't want to certain content. Is it because they're worried it won't be popular or because they're worried that it will be popular. I can't prove anything (how would you?) but I tend to think in the U.S. it's the former and in the China the la…

> The argument would be that you can find critical views of the military - just not in a blockbuster movie.

You can, in fact, have critical views of the military in blockbuster movies in the US. But not if you want to use US military bases and aircraft and ships as sets for those movies, or to get support of the US military in making the movie. Depending on the particular movie, this could be a make-or-break deal for them (Top Gun, for instance, would be pretty shitty with stock footage of US aircraft carriers and aircraft instead of actual footage staged for the movie).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#34

Post by gavinray »

Is the author around?

The visualization below "So the question has to be asked: what kind of content has been removed, and why?"

Is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

Could you share how this was made?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#35

Post by atemerev »

jrm4 wrote: post #3

I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay -- while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g. American censorship go after?

A valid question, I think. There _is_ censorship in America, mostly related to sex and nudity (for some reason, Americans are way more sensitive to this compared to Europeans). Or, say, smoking.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#36

Post by S201 »

aero-glide2 wrote: post #23

I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is it really a bad thing if different countries have different understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.

Because the people of China didn't choose this: their oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#37

Post by banannaise »

jrm4 wrote: post #11
cdot2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything you can think of you will be able to find that content. We simply don't have the kind of censorship that China has. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not. Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

Right. Censorship is accomplished economically. The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.

Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#38

Post by inglor_cz »

Dig1t wrote: post #18

[flagged]

"The political left is supposed to be very sex-positive"

That is not my impression at all. See all the attempts to formalize consent in a way that does not really square with human sexuality. Consent apps? Wtf.

Not to mention all the attempts to criminalize buying of sex, which is basically an ultraconservative position multiplied by -1.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#39

Post by drewtato »

omegaworks wrote: post #9

Kinda weird that author categorized the incest joke "Howard: I lost my virginity to my cousin Jeanie" under LGBTQ censorship. When she mentioned the justification: "China has encouraged straight couples to marry and raise two to three children." it makes some sense, but incestuous relationships are not considered by themselves "LGBTQIA2S+"

The implication is that Chinese policy considers both incest and LGBTQ as abnormal relationships.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#40

Post by KineticLensman »

swayvil wrote: post #8
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #2

It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.

It's a deeper level of censorship. Not only will you refrain from thinking about these things in a tolerant light, you will refrain from thinking about these things at all. It chops pieces off reality when you do that. Censorship is amazing. So popular (downvotes anyone?), so casually employed, yet so incredibly destructive.

Hence 1984's CrimeThink
Post reply on HN