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

211–220 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#211

Post by dogleash »

wizofaus wrote: post #152
commandlinefan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats So... you support government censorship of jokes that somebody, somewhere might be offended by?

Wouldn't that happen even in the US? A movie full of vile racist and sexist jokes bordering on abuse is not going to get a [G] rating, meaning the government is censoring it for some viewers. Edit: it seems it's actually relatively easy to find jokes that are genuinely offensive and degrading in PG rated films. Why that's considered less potentially harmful to kids than showing sex between consenting adults I honestl…

MPAA ratings are not government censorship, they're cartel censorship.

The reason corporations follow the cartel's rules are financial agreements and the fear of PR backlash for not letting parents outsource parenting.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#212

Post by mftb »

ALittleLight wrote: post #10

I can see how this might backfire. You notice a censored jump and start to feel the itch of curiosity as to what it concealed. I had to watch several of the censored scenes whereas I would have never just randomly watched clips of the show. Also, love the presentation on this page.

It absolutely backfires. No one is as successful at selling US culture as the US, except all those countries that censor exported/imported US culture.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#213

Post by mywittyname »

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…

> For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken")

That same joke is made about a lot of food chains, especially fast food, like McDonald's. Replace chicken with beef and you have half of all the jokes ever made about Taco Bell (with the other half being poo jokes).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#214

Post by wizofaus »

Beltalowda wrote: post #177
wizofaus wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that happen even in the US? A movie full of vile racist and sexist jokes bordering on abuse is not going to get a [G] rating, meaning the government is censoring it for some viewers. Edit: it seems it's actually relatively easy to find jokes that are genuinely offensive and degrading in PG rated films. Why that's considered less potentially harmful to kids than showing sex between consenting adults I honestl…

Age ratings are quite a different thing than making it unavailable to the entire public. I don't think you can just lob all censorship in the same basket like that: there's quite a bit of nuance here that makes all the difference.

I don't see any point trying to justify or argue for extreme Chinese-style censorship. But there are still useful debates to be had about censorship in Western liberal societies.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#215

Post by Beltalowda »

wizofaus wrote: post #214
Beltalowda wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age ratings are quite a different thing than making it unavailable to the entire public. I don't think you can just lob all censorship in the same basket like that: there's quite a bit of nuance here that makes all the difference.

I don't see any point trying to justify or argue for extreme Chinese-style censorship. But there are still useful debates to be had about censorship in Western liberal societies.

But they're not the same things at all; I don't think age-ratings are "censorship".

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#216

Post by alldayeveryday »

wizofaus wrote: post #193
alldayeveryday wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a population?

Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).

> Because why else would such an aversion arise?

> I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures.

But, you seem to think a lack of aversion to talking about sex to be a default? To your question, I've known many people whom are not practicing any religion and yet have an aversion to sexual discussion, within a population that has a lack thereof. There are many such topics that some feel are not keeping with decorum to be discussed openly and widely - and without religion being involved. Let's say in China there is a general aversion to sexual discussion. What will be your explanation given lack of puritanical religion?

> But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population

I don't see spontaneity to be relevant here.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#217

Post by moonchrome »

wizofaus wrote: post #193
alldayeveryday wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a population?

Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).

>Because why else would such an aversion arise?

Because it promotes social stability ? As much as I dislike defending religion - those values produced the most stable societies through history

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#218

Post by wizofaus »

dogleash wrote: post #211
wizofaus wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that happen even in the US? A movie full of vile racist and sexist jokes bordering on abuse is not going to get a [G] rating, meaning the government is censoring it for some viewers. Edit: it seems it's actually relatively easy to find jokes that are genuinely offensive and degrading in PG rated films. Why that's considered less potentially harmful to kids than showing sex between consenting adults I honestl…

MPAA ratings are not government censorship, they're cartel censorship. The reason corporations follow the cartel's rules are financial agreements and the fear of PR backlash for not letting parents outsource parenting.

So there's literally no government involvement in what content can be shown in broadcast material in the US? Even for FTA TV? In Australia the ratings system is administered by the commonwealth government, so I incorrectly assumed the same was true in the US.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#219

Post by munk-a »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #6

> This added up to over one hour of deleted scenes, or nearly three full episodes of purely censored content I would like to watch the edit of only deleted scenes strung together.

Unfortunately it's still the Big Bang Theory.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#220

Post by yorwba »

wizofaus wrote: post #193
alldayeveryday wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a population?

Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).

If it's not the default state, it must have arisen spontaneously among the founders of puritanical religions.
Post reply on HN