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

541–550 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#541

Post by dtn »

brailsafe wrote: post #494
dtn wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief, I wish people would stop pointing to a particular subset of an ethnic group to try to "prove" that people are "wrong" to get offended. 1. Videos are easily selectively edited 2. Within an immigrant ethnic group, different subgroups will have different feelings due to their experiences. For example, 1st generation immigrants tend to be less cognizant of this sort of stuff. Here's a bit of a rant for you- a…

I agree with your sentiment, but isn't it a bit ironic that you made a point of emphasizing heterogeneity among ethnic subgroups, but then sort of took that away from what was more specifically mocking Chinese and North Korean stereotypes, rather than broadly Asian? If you were Filipino and got mad about a joke that poked at Chinese materialism culture, wouldn't that be a bit of a reach? Surely within Asian cultures,…

> isn't it a bit ironic that you made a point of emphasizing heterogeneity among ethnic subgroups, but then sort of took that away from what was more specifically mocking Chinese and North Korean stereotypes, rather than broadly Asian?

Yeah a bit. I chose not to mention specific ethnicities and omit detail to keep my comment short. Regional humor has it's place, but in more nuanced contexts. A Chuck Lorre production isn't the first place I'd look to find anything thoughtful and nuanced, to be frank.

Main reason I used the broad brush for "Asian" is because in western society, 1+n generation Asian diaspora are less likely to segregate themselves by lines of national grievances back in Asia proper. In addition to that, nationality is rarely the deciding factor on whether an individual is subjected to racial jokes (from outside personal circles), it's their appearance. I've been jokingly accused of being a Chinese spy, despite not being ethnically Chinese.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#542

Post by sacrosancty »

Dig1t wrote: post #437
ginger2016 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli, I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this show to be aired there.

I mean, it's comedy, it's obviously not hateful. The whole point was that all the main characters were stereotypical nerds and each displayed a different type social difficulty. I mean Sheldon was obviously supposed to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, how is that not ableist or whatever? It was also apart of his character arc! If you watch the show, Raj eventually overcomes his fear of talking to women and ends…

> 50% of the cast is jewish (as well as almost all of the producers AND the director)

Careful now, don't want to go spreading stereotypes that Jews control Hollywood or anything! /s

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#543

Post by hansvm »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #519
Ajedi32 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't lend out individual chapters of a book You can't? If I buy a physical book, I can't rip a page out of it and sell that to you? That's certainly the first I've heard of any such law.

You can certainly rip a page out and sell it, by doctrine of first sale. Only one person can have the page at a time. What you can’t (legally) do is copy a page of your book and sell it/give it away (though maybe one could argue that a mere page would be a small enough excerpt to fall under fair use). VidAngel (and the hypothetical 10 second streamer) fall under the latter, since streaming inherently makes a copy. As…

> since streaming inherently makes a copy

If we're being pedantic about a few stray electrons, you also make a copy when you stream it from the disc to your CPU, from your CPU back to a monitor, and so on. If VidAngel had a minimum "purchase" time of 1yr the case probably would have swung the other way. The issue isn't the streaming, but rather that the nature of the agreement was more akin to making a copy than not (with "sales" happening substantially faster than they would have in meat space).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#544

Post by apostacy »

kasey_junk wrote: post #484
kypro wrote: post #469

This happens in the West too. For example one of my favourite shows, "Peep Show" has a scene removed because one of the main characters wears black face to break social taboos. Obviously, it's done in a mocking way, but even mocking someone for black face has been deemed inappropriate by modern Western standards. The show isn't even that old either. I'm almost certain there would be things seen as normal or inoffensi…

Peep Show was not edited due to laws, it was a private streaming service that made that decision. At the same time a rival streaming service was showing the unedited version. I think there is an important conversation to be had about censorship by large corporations but equating them to widespread, governmental censorship is not helpful.

It makes almost no difference at all, all that matters is the outcome. People with power are exerting pressure to deny people access to information.

Honestly I'd rather have the weak and ineffective Indian government "ban" something, than have the full force of corporate America collude to punish me for trying to serve "problematic" content.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#546

Post by lettergram »

IX-103 wrote: post #518
lettergram wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Again my point was most people don’t. It wasn’t a troll; it was a comment about censorship. How certain topics are also censored on HN and elsewhere. That people whom we otherwise would expect curiosity are instead pro-suppressing discussion ie censoring.

The fact you responded with “hello troll” is a perfect example.

1. The “election fortification” comment is in regards to https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ it’s a tongue in cheek title from a group which helped “ensure the outcome of the election” as they put it.

2. Hunter Biden's laptop was confirmed legitimate. It was easily confirmable by multiple people who knew the Biden’s. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunt... The senate report further confirmed it https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...

I can keep going, but my general point was that if you didn’t read the reports in detail (not via a pundit). Particularly, if you didn’t / couldn’t review the source material. Then the censorship worked. There’s a great segment on CNN about wikileaks https://streamable.com/6g5v where you can’t read Hillary emails, you have to hear it from CNN. “Remember it’s illegal for anyone besides journalists to read her emails” a lie, but a form of censorship.

It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, it’s wether the discussion is suppressed. That’s the censorship.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#547

Post by yomkippur »

gwbas1c wrote: post #92
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.

Keep in mind that this is government censorship; as opposed to private services performing the censorship to meet the desires of their users. I really don't have a problem with services offering edited, family-friendly versions of media as long as its disclosed and there's a way to see the original.

I have to wonder, if your government is so threatened by what's discussed or shown in entertainment/art content, you are the opposite of anti-fragility.

What good can they even accomplish if they get triggered by a disney character or a specific flag?

I'm glad that the CCP will disappear in our life time. Question is, how petty will the next Han Chinese led government be? They've always sucked badly at maintaining large bureaucracy.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#549

Post by Dracophoenix »

trinovantes wrote: post #510
Dracophoenix wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadcast anime on daytime television. While companies like 4Kids that did the actual censoring (like digitally editing cells) and replacing lines ( "localization" as they would call it), it is the FCC that has power over broadcast licensing and provides a disincentive for showing work that soccer moms found distasteful, even if otherwise covered under the First Amendment.

broadcast != distribution It's not illegal to import/purchase the unedited original versions with guns, deaths, and nudity (excluding lolita). With online streaming being the norm now, the government has no say in the content consumed.

In this context of both the GP and the main post itself, broadcast is no different from distribution, whether via television or the Internet.

> It's not illegal to import/purchase the unedited original versions with guns, deaths, and nudity (excluding lolita).

One could say the same about China. There's no law against importing uncensored movies for private consumption and any laws against their sale by local denizens, if such laws exist, go unenforced. Even in Beijing, you can buy high-quality, uncensored bootlegs of practically every American movie and TV show.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#550

Post by 4512124672456 »

lettergram wrote: post #428
andruby wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We (the HN crowd, often living in less-censored societies) would be very curious. I’d like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and those living in more censored places. My assumption is that they take it for granted and just continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even find the uncensored clips.

[flagged]

People (or NPCs/bots, like you call them) downvote you because not only is it a bad take and does have questionable grammar, it's also full of misinformation.

Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?

Besides, censorship is not inherently bad, and most stable democracies with a functioning legal system will have some form of censorship, to protect minors, for example.

Post reply on HN