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

261–270 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#261

Post by mananaysiempre »

moonchrome wrote: post #217
wizofaus wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m not really sure we have a large enough corpus of (known) societies, but even ignoring that, were any pre-Middle Ages or non-Western European societies nearly as tight-lipped about sex? And just how tight-lipped actually was medieval Europe, when even Sleeping Beauty was awoken by being fucked? Finally, to which degree is stability of the social order desirable? Medieval Europe, sakoku Japan and zastoj USSR were all (meta)stable to some degree, but they were also hellholes of varying depth.

I don’t actually think the answers to these questions disprove your statement, because I have a painful lack of knowledge as to what those answers actually are. But I do feel that those answers need to be given before an argument such as yours can make sense.

(Granted, a trait that promotes societal stability can become common even if stability isn’t actually good, so the last question is not as important as the others. A dystopian equilibrium is still an equilibrium.)

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#262

Post by discreteevent »

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?

I wouldn't think it surprising if they had at least customs around sex (whatever about taboos). Without contraception sex can cause a lot of trouble. People, even animals, will kill for mating rights.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#263

Post by pessimizer »

mywittyname wrote: post #213
sltkr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Those are companies, not nationalities.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#264

Post by Kye »

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…

Pop Culture Detective did a video on the show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3-hOigoxHs

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#265

Post by pessimizer »

nindalf wrote: post #124
ascar wrote: post #110

Side note: the article mentions canned laughter in TBBT rather early. TBBT actually doesn't use canned laughter but uses laughter from the live audience for its laugh track. I pity that I didn't have the chance to visit the studios and be part of that laugh track :(

Most shows that use canned laughter (Friends, Seinfeld etc.) were filmed in front of an audience. It’s not worth the hassle to set up audio recoding for the audience, especially because people aren’t reliable. They might not laugh at the right moment, one or two audience members might have a weird laugh, they might be too soft or loud. The audience reaction is useful feedback for the actors, but the laughter is canne…

No modern sitcom filmed in front of a live studio audience uses canned laughter. They may sweeten laughter with overdubs, but they're not throwing away the real thing for the fake stuff.

Live audience laughter completely changes the timing for 3-camera sitcoms, because the actors have to wait for it to finish. Setting up audio recording for the audience is trivial.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#266

Post by function_seven »

some-human wrote: post #251
function_seven wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

My argument is against the statement that the US is “honestly no better”

You’re raising a point about RF broadcast of obscene content. That’s a tiny slice of available media. What China is censoring is being done as completely as they can muster. What the FCC censors is narrowed down to airwave broadcasts.

Surely you can see that there’s a difference here, right?

Tank Man is prohibited completely. Not just over a certain delivery method, during certain times of day.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#268

Post by tuatoru »

concordDance wrote: post #242
mftb wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems untrue. Do more than a fraction of a percent of Chinese people watch the uncensored versions of things?

Not on a regular basis, perhaps.

The glitches serve to remind them daily that their government is manipulating them.

The dilemma that China's leaders have is that they need an educated workforce, capable of logical and critical thinking, but they can't stop that workforce thinking critically outside work.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#269

Post by jibe »

curun1r wrote: post #260
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.

Blockbuster was silently editing many of their VHS rentals before DVD took over.

That's not exactly right. Blockbuster simply had a policy not to carry X-rated films that became a no NC-17 rated films when the rating changed.

The video distributor of Bad Lieutenant created an R rated version of the film. The end result is still a wrecked/censored version of the movie, but it wasn't Blockbuster doing the silent editing. It is the choice of the film maker/studio/distributor to get the extra money from Blockbuster.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#270

Post by still_grokking »

What's the moral here?

There is also a lot of censoring in the "western" world.

It's also mostly justified by the exact same "reasons" like the ones mentioned in that blog post. Especial the "but the children" "argument" is used the whole time. And if that gets boring than it's "terrorism". Than again "the children".

Also there are a lot of things one can't publicity say for political reasons.

In Germany for example most people know: If you want to watch some more "controversial" movies, or play uncensored games you need to get them on the gray or black market. The German versions are very often heavily censored, or there is just no German version at all because the content is outright verboten.

Also communication online gets censored. It's impossible by now to say some (still) completely "legal" but "not politically correct" things online especially around mainstream media.

The censorship in the EU gets also stronger every year. Now they banned "dangerous" foreign media… Actually without any grounding in established law. But who needs laws? It will take as always many many years until some judge will have the last saying and declare the things the government did as illegal. But than the game will just start again, also as always: Making illegal "laws" takes weeks. Getting rid of them takes decades. Then they change the wording, and you need to sue through all instance form the beginning. Ad nauseam.

Post reply on HN