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

391–400 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#391

Post by koonsolo »

politician wrote: post #135
paxys wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Communist Party is the reason China is in this mess in the first place, and further control and oppression by them isn't going to magically fix it.

That's a fair observation. I'm curious though, do you have any ideas to improve the situation? What would you do if you were responsible for 1.5B people and were facing a situation where the labor force participation drops by half over the next ten years and continues to drop every year since? Will you be able to arrange for the population to be able to be fed, clothed, housed, and given medical care? It's not possib…

Well, because it's a totalitarian regime, they actually don't have to do anything. The party members just live in wealth and let the others live with the problem.

That's the difference with democracy. In a democracy, the leaders have to explain themselves to the entire public. Also in a democracy, you can criticize governmental decisions, which might lead to better solutions, or even prevent them.

The solution? Make your country attractive for young Indian (and other) immigrants. Or just make the older generation "disappear". Communist seem to be especially well trained in letting people disappear.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#393

Post by wizofaus »

thegrimmest wrote: post #383
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).

> I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures There are loads of sensible "defaults" for human cultures. Aversion and disgust at the practices of unfamiliar out-groups is one - keeps us from getting their diseases. Practices assuring paternity are another - males that are indifferent to who's children they raise aren't very well selected for. Risk aversion in, and preference for protection of,…

I'd agree with those (I just don't necessarily think of them as "defaults", which implies there's no real disadvantage to adopting alternative shared cultural understandings). And I'd suggest that an aversion to talking about sex is surely the opposite of a practice assuring paternity?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#394

Post by Animats »

What's more striking is what comes out of China's domestic entertainment industry. There are far too many historical costume dramas. Those aren't as heavily censored as modern ones. More modern content looks like it was censored in accordance with the US Television Code of the 1950s. ("The code prohibited the use of profanity, the negative portrayal of family life, irreverence for God and religion, illicit sex, drunkenness and biochemical addiction, presentation of cruelty, detailed techniques of crime, the use of horror for its own sake, and the negative portrayal of law enforcement officials, among others.")[1] That's close to China's list. China also censors political subjects, to the point that nobody dares get near them in film or TV.

The quality is improving, though. A decade ago, there was "Sky Fighters", which is China's version of "Top Gun". That was produced by a film unit of the People's Liberation Army, and it's as heavy-handed as you might expect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Practices_for_Televisi...

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#395

Post by astrange »

cutemonster wrote: post #83
darawk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it slightly amazing how often commenters here (hello aero-glide2) fail to see that the people in a country are not the same as the dictators controlling the country. When such misunderstandings are common here at HN, where people are a bit brighter that elsewhere (or so I think) -- then, such misunderstandings must be dangerously common outside HN. I wonder what consequences follow from that

That's because the people who say this are the only ones who believe it. In particular, Chinese people themselves don't believe it, and do believe their government is the same thing as "them" and represents them, so they still take it personally/nationalistically when you criticize the government.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#396

Post by Jcowell »

jacekm wrote: post #385
ginger2016 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women. Raj can’t speak with women without the use of alcohol, the show constantly mocks his accent, worshipping of cows etc.

Is it also affirming a stereotype that Indians are incredibly rich? Because that's how Raj is portrayed and the show mocks his wealth on more than one occasion.

Similar to a comment above , is it affirming that all Indians in the show are rich or that the character is of Indian background and is rich.

Having watch the show, the show never mocks his wealth but his dependence on his parents wealth (and even has an arc where he strives to be independent for it).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#397

Post by didgetmaster »

joshstrange wrote: post #173
didgetmaster wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I used the term 'similar' it had nothing to do with the reasoning or methodology behind the censoring. Only that the finished product in both cases was sufficiently censored that less than half the original content remained. It is not just a few select pieces that are cut out, it is creating a whole new product that is almost unrecognizable when compared to the original.

My apologies then. I read it differently and jumped to the wrong conclusion about the point you were making.

Apology accepted. Sometime I too jump to conclusions when I shouldn't, so I understand.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#398

Post by mendelk »

danjoredd wrote: post #290
still_grokking wrote: post #270

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…

It is more extreme in China than in America. In addition to sex, lgbt, and other things of a similar nature, movies with magic are especially rejected. Ever notice how movies seem to be getting more bland and milk/toast each year? its because there is a lot of money in China, and China only accepts a few foreign movies each year. Disney, Warner Bros, etc. all want a slice of that pie so they comply with Chinese censo…

> milk/toast

FYI the word I believe you're looking for is "milquetoast" :)

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#399

Post by InCityDreams »

ginger2016 wrote: post #335
clouddrover wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in particular is racist about it?

If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women. Raj can’t speak with women without the use of alcohol, the show constantly mocks his accent, worshipping of cows etc.

Utter fucking bullshit.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#400

Post by bentley »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #378
joezydeco wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of me still thinks Aereo wasn't honest with their technology. They showed off massive boards full of miniature UHF antennae, but a tuner/encoder is more than that. They never showed that part.

It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's logic was "sure, every individual part of this is completely legal, but if you consider it as a black box, it feels like a different thing which is illegal, so we're going to treat it like it's illegal thing." That conclusion was pretty likely, but it's utterly baffling to someone who thinks about the law like a programmer. To put it in the Supreme Court's exact words: "Given Ae…

I always liked Antonin Scalia’s dissent in that case.

“We came within one vote of declaring the VCR contraband 30 years ago in Sony [v. Universal]. The dissent in that case was driven in part by the plaintiffs’ prediction that VCR technology would wreak all manner of havoc in the television and movie industries. The Networks make similarly dire predictions about Aereo. We are told that nothing less than ‘the very existence of broadcast television as we know it’ is at stake. Aereo and its amici dispute those forecasts and make a few of their own.… We are in no position to judge the validity of those self-interested claims or to foresee the path of future technological development. Hence, the proper course is not to bend and twist the Act’s terms in an effort to produce a just outcome, but to apply the law as it stands…”

Post reply on HN