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

721–730 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#721

Post by npteljes »

Julesman wrote: post #162

How cringe-worthy is that tired racist joke about the Chinese eating dogs? It's like that one drunk great-uncle at Thanksgiving who just absolutely loves that joke and you know, every single year, you gotta hear it. And he can't tell you once single practical reason why he hates China. Really, he just likes the racism. That's it.

I think people are primed to that joke; I personally hear that "What they pass off as chicken" alludes to "mystery meat" - a derogatory term for meat that doesn's have a clear origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_meat

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#722

Post by teekert »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #308
coryfklein wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

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…

It all about ROI (Radio On Internet).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#723

Post by Dylan16807 »

Nursie wrote: post #505
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's utterly baffling to someone who thinks about the law like a programmer. Programmers seem to think about the law like a program, like a set of rules governing system behaviour and so long as they are not directly violated, this one neat trick judges hate will let them do whatever it is without recourse. But that's not true, firstly because the law is fuzzy and deals with human behaviour, including taking wider…

I understand that point of view in general, but in this case the only thing making the service a violation in the first place was one dumb trick. I would argue that Aereo was doing their best to remove technicalities.

The ruling also managed to make the law even more inconsistent. If I rent an antenna and install it in a datacenter for TV, that's kosher. If I rent an antenna and pay someone else to install it in a datacenter for TV, that's a copyright violation.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#724

Post by wawjgreen »

jlawson wrote: post #656
Spivak wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox of tolerance isn’t really a paradox, it’s a proof by contradiction that the naive notion of tolerance is not sound. Homosexuality is a natural observable phenomenon in the human species across time and cultures. It is an aspect of people as fundamental as height or skin tone. Not accepting them for any reason is intolerance and does not have to be tolerated. It is also intolerance to not accept Muslims, b…

You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop other…

why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda.

Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#725

Post by Dylan16807 »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #695
koprulusector wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Last I checked Alex Jones has his own show and Trump has his own social network which has been (might still be) #1 in Apple’s App Store. I am confused on how this is censorship? That said, if a private company like Twitter thinks Alex Jones is a liability because he spreads conspiracy theories of shape shifting lizard people from alternate dimensions sabotaging the Trump Preside…

There's an argument that huge social media sites that have wide-scale usage are like utilities. The water company isn't allowed to shut off your taps because you said something they don't like.

That's a very valid argument, but it's a bit of a tangent from censorship.

Let me make an analogy to Alex Jones and Trump: if the water company cuts someone off, but they continue to run a huge fountain in front of their mansion, then you can't reasonably claim they're being deprived of drinking water.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#726

Post by jokowueu »

wrs wrote: post #241
sudhirj wrote: post #58

We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zooming into character's faces or just straight cuts. This is probably the only reason I maintain a US iTunes accounts (used to have to buy gift cards from sketchy sites online to keep this going, but I recently discovered that my Indian Amex card works fine with a…

There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/

Woah this is fantastic ! Thanks for the tip

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#727

Post by hikingsimulator »

politician wrote: post #105
cutemonster wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the scale of the demographic collapse in China -- the over-reporting of girls by 100M, the situation where 20M men have no chance of the possibility of having a stable heterosexual relationship due to the lack of women, the rapidly aging population (highest in the world) that is post child bearing age -- doesn't it begin to seem reasonable the steps that the government is taking to curtail and shape public opin…

The main propagator in the US of the Chinese demographic collapse is Peter Zeihan, who may not be the best source here. Even if some of his predictions have been right wrt Europe, he tends to have and present unsourced information for anything Asia/China related.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#728

Post by LAC-Tech »

bnjms wrote: post #634
LAC-Tech wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently disadvantaged? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U... Indian Americans have a median household income of $126,705. By comparison English Americans are at $78,078.

Yes and this was the point made. You’ve exactly misunderstood they are including Indian Americans as non-disadvantaged.

Yes, re-reading that I did make a mistake.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#729

Post by gopiandcode »

jlawson wrote: post #656
Spivak wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox of tolerance isn’t really a paradox, it’s a proof by contradiction that the naive notion of tolerance is not sound. Homosexuality is a natural observable phenomenon in the human species across time and cultures. It is an aspect of people as fundamental as height or skin tone. Not accepting them for any reason is intolerance and does not have to be tolerated. It is also intolerance to not accept Muslims, b…

You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop other…

> I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.

Yeah, it really is sad to see people so eager to embrace authoritarian sensibilities like this. The paradox of tolerence has seemingly become a buzzword without meaning, perverted beyond its original intent; a simple facade that enables people to feel self-justified about their own intolerance while still allowing them to claim progressive ideals.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#730

Post by Gordonjcp »

ginger2016 wrote: post #529
kelnos wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was never a big fan of the show, but emphasizing stereotypes is a very common, often very effective form of comedy. If that's not your cup of tea, that's fine -- I tired of it quickly and stopped watching -- but that doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.

I don’t consider stereotypes funny. America has a really bad history when it comes to shows propagating racial stereotypes. People finding a stereotype funny is not a good reason to air it on national television. Jim Crow was a stereotype which plenty of people found funny 80 years ago, we don’t find it funny anymore(it was never funny), as we see it for the truth. It was an untrue racist portrayal that harmed Black…

So you think that Apu from The Simpsons is a harmful stereotype?

What about Groundskeeper Willie?

What about Lisa?

What about Homer?

Post reply on HN