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

441–450 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#441

Post by cercatrova »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #415
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.

So what? It's a comedy tv series. I'm a slav and from the balkans, we're either portrayed as tracksuit wearing thugs, drunks or in some relation to the balkan wars. So what? We even have our own comedy tv series playing with the stereotypes (eg. Kursadzije), where all the stereotypes are used all the time (serbs and croats have historic "issues", montenegrins are lazy, bosnians are stupid and slovenians are femboys).…

Indeed, it always seems that it's not the prejudiced party being offended but rather others on their belief. It is similar to the comments about, for example, wearing a kimono and it being deemed cultural appropriation by everyone except Japanese people who gladly welcome sharing their culture. Can they show me even a few Indians who were offended by Raj?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#442

Post by karaterobot »

aero-glide2 wrote: post #23

I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is it really a bad thing if different countries have different understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.

If you believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and that they remain rights regardless of whoever says they aren't, and you think free speech is one of those rights, then yes, it's a bad thing. Not everybody does, and those who do cannot always agree on the details. But, some people do.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#443

Post by Sebb767 »

muglug wrote: post #387
fluoridation wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the implicit assumption that everyone is only a sufficiently convincing argument away from going gay.

They want gay people to stay in the closet and have unhappy marriages that produce lots of kids.

There are also bisexual people who might end up with a same sex partner when free choose, but go with a heterosexual relationship due to societal pressure.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#444

Post by kelnos »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #423
MichaelCollins wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible. In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but…

Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost. The only reason rentals worked was becau…

That's not really a "logical extreme", that's a straw man and an obvious ploy to do something you're not supposed to be able to do.

I think a reasonable person would see that what you describe is an attempt to make an end run around both the spirit and letter of the law. But what VidAngel was doing was "one copy = one view", which is IMO entirely reasonable. There is zero moral difference between mailing someone a Bluray disc (with instructions -- either automated or manual -- of what parts to skip) vs. keeping that disc in a warehouse and streaming the (censored) contents to exactly one person at a time.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#445

Post by lozenge »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #423
MichaelCollins wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible. In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but…

Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost. The only reason rentals worked was becau…

A 10 second clip of a movie that is designed to be stitched with 710 other 10 second clips isn't fair use, it's just copyright infringement.

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:[8]

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#446

Post by smsm42 »

ginger2016 wrote: post #353
clouddrover wrote: post #342

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. Weak. > It is affirming the stereotype Indian males Is your claim that there are no Indian males who lack confidence with women? Or that there are no nerdy, geeky men who lack confidence with women? What's an example of the show mocking his accent? You do understand that's his normal speaking voice, I hope…

Where Kunal Nayar grew is insignificant. Most of the soldiers who fought for British India were Indians themselves but that doesn’t mean the occupation of India was right. In the case of Indian soldiers it was in their personal monetary interest to fight for the British. You are trying to make a similar argument, the role advances Kunal Nayar’s career and I am sure he is in it because it helps him, doesn’t mean the s…

You really have no idea what the point of comedy is, do you? Just in case, it's not to provide you with statistically accurate portrayal of the population of India (or any other place, for that matter). It's creating ridiculously exaggerated portrayals of common problems and depicting them in comedically outlandish way. It's not a documentary about the virility or Indian males, most of whom I am confident are utter studs. It's supposed to be grossly a-typical, that's the whole point. That's like complaining clowns are offensive because nobody in real life has a red nose like that. That's the whole point of the thing!

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#447

Post by TulliusCicero »

teawrecks wrote: post #439

> When the Netflix-produced Korean show Squid Game went viral and won awards worldwide, many Chinese netizens were asking on social media — when can a Chinese TV show be recognized in that way? Fascinating. I mean, the answer is obvious to everyone else in the world, but it'll be interesting to watch them figure it out over the next few decades. Is Squid Games even allowed in China?

I mean, yes lack of censorship, but there are plenty of countries with little censorship that haven't had the same level of success as Korea in TV shows either.

Look at Germany, for example. Big country, economic powerhouse, but German TV shows and movies have little broad international appeal.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#449

Post by Gigachad »

the_optimist wrote: post #191
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…

Agree, these are 'jokes' are pathetically trite, bland fare. However ironically, liberal college grads are mostly the ones writing the shows. Hard to wrap one's head around.

No one is claiming that The Big Bang Theory is the peak of high class humor but I wouldn't say its offensive. The first example might seem offensive if you don't have any social skills but the joke is not about the eyes of Asian people, the joke is that old people, particularly in rural areas often make off hand racist comments and the awkward moments that result. The viewer is meant to relate to things they have heard their parents say rather than relating with the person reading the line.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#450

Post by brigandish »

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.

Someone should educate you in basic manners. You made a claim, you were asked a simple and obvious question to get you to back up the claim. There is absolutely no need for the response you gave.

As to your examples, they need work.

> It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women.

That's a behaviour that is not linked to race.

> Raj can’t speak with women without the use of alcohol

That's an exaggeration of a character flaw, standard fare for a sitcom.

> the show constantly mocks his accent

The actor provides the accent, what does he think about it?

> worshipping of cows

Americans are - in theory at least - allowed to mock religion. That is not racist, that's rational.

Post reply on HN