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

61–70 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#61

Post by throwaways85989 »

sltkr wrote: post #57
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.

Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot of these jokes are, but I can definitely see why the censors took offense at some of them. For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken") plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats, and the “passing off” remark implies that the Chinese restaurant owners are decep…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#62

Post by omegaworks »

lmkg wrote: post #47
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+"

While the term "LGBTQ+" is highlighted in blue, every instance of it also includes a parenthetical about "or other atypical heterosexual relationships." The labelling is awkward but this seems to me to be there specifically to avoid applying the LGBTQ+ label to incest jokes. The author was raised in another culture and I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here. There are plenty of cultures (even in the US…

The labeling is awkward, that's what I intended to highlight. "Non-normative relationships" or "non-procreative relationships" would have been a great alternative.

>There are plenty of cultures (even in the US!) that would lump together queerness and incest and forms of sexual transgression.

And it's a not so great thing to do when the goal is safety and acceptance of the queer community.

>The author was raised in another culture and I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

I'm not ascribing any kind of malice or ill intent, just trying to highlight a (to some cultures, important!) distinction that was not made.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#63

Post by cutemonster »

Sin2x wrote: post #27
swayvil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This idea can be easily reversed: It's a deeper level of indoctrination. When these things are covertly inserted in an innocuous sounding show, not only will you start thinking about them, you will subconsiously think of them in a tolerant light. China has its own culture and mores, why should it allow that kind of soft projection of Western power.

> China has its own culture and mores

Correction: Xi and the CCP have their own culture and mores

The people, though, want to see The Big Bang Theory uncensored.

The people are different from Xi. They don't want the same things as he (except for the ones Xi has successfully brainwashed, or those who have a highly tribal brain).

> why should it allow that kind of soft projection

That sounds paranoid, I hope you don't mind. Reasoning in that way, almost all movies in the world wold be a "soft projection" and Nation State attack. But sometimes it's just jokes or reality and a good movie ... or would have been.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#64

Post by didgetmaster »

chabons wrote: post #29
debacle wrote: post #13

Interesting that censoring only 3% of what I would regard as a very trendy show can eliminate depictions of sexuality, sex, religion, and unwanted political commentary. You can effectively change reality by adjusting a tiny fraction of it. This is why the Overton Window is so important.

That percentage will depend heavily on the show. The Big Bang Theory is fairly innocuous. Imagine trying to censor dramas like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, or House of Cards to remove all of the depictions of sex, drugs, or political commentary.

I remember watching a standup comedy show by either Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor a long time ago that was heavily censored. There were so many bleeps in the program that you could barely follow it. It was similar to the recent heavily-redacted FBI affidavit that was released and where every other sentence seems to be blacked out.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#65

Post by JBits »

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?

Gay characters in cartoons is the first thing that comes to my mind. Such as censorship of gay couples in Sailor Moon in the 90s (including altering one to be a pair of cousins). More recently, the creator of the disney cartoon Gravity Falls had resistance from executives over their inclusion when making the show.

Another is censorship of LGBT books in certain states.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#66

Post by yegle »

Friends: the globe was censored, presumably because no one can be sure if Taiwan is marked as part of China: https://twitter.com/williamlong/status/1492775822859517957

There's also a funny clip when Ross is trying to explain his ex-wife is a Lesbian. This part was censored, so you see Ross is about to say something, next his parents act like surprised. It actually made the scene funnier.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#67

Post by DoreenMichele »

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?

America is much more sensitive about sex and nudity than a lot of other cultures.

In I, Robot, a scene that showed in the European version did not show in the US version. It was a full body nudity shower scene and the point was to show you how extensive his robotic parts were. They had to find some other means to explain that to the audience in the US and it wasn't even a sexual scene. Just full nudity (of Will Smith, to be clear).

"Tentacle beasts" in, I think, Japan can do all kinds of sexual stuff that would be outrageous in the US and not shown here. I am not super familiar, so can't really elaborate.

We also have a long history of using "coded messages" to talk about racial stuff in the US. When Elvis first aired, he sounded so much like a Black musician compared to what was the norm for music at the time that they would talk about what high school he was from as code for "This is a White guy" because segregation was a thing, so naming his high school was signaling his race.

We have a history of censoring LGBTQ topics. I saw something once where they showed a deleted scene from an old black and white film about Roman history and the scene was a coded message about whether someone was gay or bisexual or something. They used some euphemism or other and it was considered too much and got cut.

Violence. I have become a fan of things that are careful in how they show violence, showing just enough to know something bad happened while sidestepping unnecessary gore. I think that's generally a good thing, but it is a form of censorship nonetheless.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#68

Post by peteradio »

jollybean wrote: post #50
swayvil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, I think there's a more benign reason and that is references to those kinds of things are just a bit below bar for normally civil programming. If you've ever watched the banal things that people go through to get something past daytime censors, or, get a PG rating for films etc. it's similar. This is not 'Xi's authoritarian' system so much as 'different cultural standards of the moment'. Respect that in some…

But this is streaming not broadcast daytime television. Censoring crude jokes/porn/violence that might be happened upon by a toddler flipping the remote makes quite a lot of sense.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#69

Post by ndespres »

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.

Some of these jokes which are censored for criticism of China are so tasteless that they ought to be censored in the American version as well, or better still, never written at all. A joke about whether the "chicken" at the local Chinese takeout restaurant is actually chicken? In the 21st century? That is supposed to be amusing?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#70

Post by nightpool »

wozer wrote: post #45
Sin2x wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea can be easily reversed: It's a deeper level of indoctrination. When these things are covertly inserted in an innocuous sounding show, not only will you start thinking about them, you will subconsiously think of them in a tolerant light. China has its own culture and mores, why should it allow that kind of soft projection of Western power.

For some things that might be true. But when the indoctrination collides with reality in a harmful way, it's a different matter. Objectively, it is true that gay people exists and that there is no good reason to restrict their rights.

Sure, but like other people in this thread are saying, it's not objectively true that the Chinese restaurant down the street is selling you dog meet and pretending that it's chicken, or that Chinese academics in the US are siphoning grant money and funneling it to Pyongyang. "Pervasive cultural norms colliding with reality" is a two-way street.
Post reply on HN