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

251–260 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#251

Post by some-human »

function_seven wrote: post #205
some-human wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say the word "Bullshit" and then show a erect penis on Wheel of Fortune and see how that 'we don't censor things' goes for you.

I guarantee you that the footage would be a viral sensation online. King World productions would decline to air it, okay. But if it leaked, it would be viewed by millions. Are you saying that a production company not airing craziness is the same as being arrested for calling your leader a cartoon bear? Is that the equivalency I'm supposed to be drawing? ( https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/tweets-01232020164342..…

Not only would they "decline to air it" they are prohibited from airing it.

> Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

> Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment. For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

via [https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr....]

Christ in the Original Star Trek run CBS had a censor employed on set for an episode where a character wore a risky outfit to make sure no nipples popped out. That isn't different to this Chinese company making sure their shows meet the restrictions of the Chinese authority.

Your weird puritan country will air a show where a character shoots someone with a gun in the street, in your copaganda shows, but god forbid one of them gets a tit out whilst they do it.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#252

Post by concordDance »

cdot2 wrote: post #5
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?

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.

> Anything you can think of you will be able to find that content.

That's untrue. A trivial example is porn involving 17 year olds.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#253

Post by concordDance »

lwansbrough wrote: post #78

Interesting to see what passes for a joke on The Big Bang Theory. I knew the show was bad but wow. Perhaps just as surprising is the author's suggestion that a xenophobic remark about a Chinese restaurant is "harmless". I'm not even particularly sensitive when it comes to race relations, but that's just such a negative stereotype it's hard to ignore. I despise Chinese censorship, but I would support the Chinese gover…

> xenophobic

It's interesting how politically charged words mutate over time.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#254

Post by stavros »

pnemonic wrote: post #188
joe_the_user wrote: post #171

It's worth noting that American censorship in, say, 1960, was at close to the same level. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_...

Is it just as worth noting then that China is more than 60 years behind the US in terms of social progress?

Or ahead, who knows?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#255

Post by nineplay »

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).

Talking about sex is taboo because having sex is taboo. Having sex is taboo because if women have sex with more than one man, none of men can be sure whose child she is carrying.

Men, in general, really like having their genes carried on. Men, in general, really hate wondering if a child is theirs or not.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#256

Post by moonchrome »

wizofaus wrote: post #238
moonchrome wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

Why would not even talking about sex promote social stability? Arguably the most stable societies are those that existed for 10s of 1000s of years before the agricultural revolution etc. Did they generally have taboos around discussion of sex?

>Arguably the most stable societies are those that existed for 10s of 1000s of years before the agricultural revolution etc.

Societies of n>100s. By tabooing sex you reduce promiscuous behaviour - which stabilises society. I don't really see how this would be controversial. Modern social values have unambiguously shown that they lead to a population decline. Huge difference being that technology makes us less reliant on population count for stability (hopefully).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#257

Post by [deleted] »

darawk wrote: post #56
S201 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is right. If people vote for censorship in a democracy, that's a perfectly fine form of governmental heterogeneity. What's happening in China is not that.

[deleted]

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#258

Post by dirtyid »

jedberg wrote: post #107
throwaway5752 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who posted that video, and was it unedited? If we're going on a single piece of anecdata, I think it's fair to question if the creator had any biases or was trustworthy. And not all racism / bias is equal. Maybe you are right that Chinese and Chinese-American people would not be offended by this, but it seems completely reasonable that they would be, and the onus on you would be to get data that they wouldn't. It rea…

> and the onus on you would be to get data that they wouldn't. FWIW I have a few data points -- this is something my Chinese wife has literally said inside a Chinese restaurant, and some of her other family members have said similar things about not trusting that the food being served is what they said it was.

> not trusting that the food being served is what they said it was

Chinese folks being weary of restaurants with swapping ingredients for lower tier is not comparable to assuming chicken being swapped for cat, which is a tired joke. Usually reserved for pricer seafood, hence pick your victim tanks. Many restaurants do similar type of substitute shenangians, like I'm pretty sure the hipster burger joing is not serving genuine kobe beef patty for $15, but they're also not serving ground chihuahua either. Like even in PRC you're worried about things like gutter oil at a hole in a wall joint versus slightly cheaper grade of sea cucumber at a fancy restaurant. Even during the pork crisis, no one was particularly concerned that restaurants were feeding them cat/dogs instead.

E: relate back to your parent comment, there's somethigns like cultural appropriation that most (especially older gen) Chinese don't care about, i.e. they thumbs up for white girls wearing qipao.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#259

Post by pessimizer »

planb wrote: post #206
pnemonic wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just as worth noting then that China is more than 60 years behind the US in terms of social progress?

“Behind” implies that they’re following and moving in the same direction. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the case.

The incarceration rate of the US in 1960 was about 225/100K, and in China it's currently around 120/100K, so China is doing a little better than we were 60 years ago.

Of course our incarceration rate now has nearly tripled to 640/100K, so thank God they're not following us.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#260

Post by curun1r »

joe_the_user wrote: post #171

It's worth noting that American censorship in, say, 1960, was at close to the same level. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_...

1960s? Try the 1990s. The Blockbuster version of Bad Lieutenant had almost 30 min removed. Blockbuster was silently editing many of their VHS rentals before DVD took over.

Yes, not government censorship, but it’s almost worse when a private, unaccountable, entity is imposing its own moral values, especially when they reach the size that Blockbuster did during its heyday.

Post reply on HN