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

771–780 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#771

Post by vlunkr »

dudeguy3301 wrote: post #748
vlunkr wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vidangel is a pretty absurd company. I read recently that they are still around and trying to come up with their next strategy. It does raise an interesting question for me though: is Hollywood losing out on profits by not offering censored versions of their content? Clearly there’s some demand. People like to make arguments about artistic integrity, but they have no problem censoring content to air on network tv.

so, censoring a film is editing the intended form. this seems damaging to creators. also, if a movie has a bunch of sex and violence that gets censored out, what remains is still the intended context for the sex and violence, so why would a concerned person even watch it in the first place? absurd! like, for example, pulp fiction...how the fuck would a censored version make any sense, and who in gods fucking name wou…

Like I said, they already do it themselves for TV airing, is it criminal then? And sure Pulp Fiction would be a mess. That’s quite an edge case though.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#772

Post by ipython »

brigandish wrote: post #759
ipython wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord. If the government was so committed to “suppressing” those stories as you claim, they were awfully bad at it, as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. And I don’t see black helicopters anywhere picking you up to some secret prison. Unlike the ccp example here, where I would say they do have a great handle on what can and cannot be discussed on any public platform and d…

> If the government was so committed to “suppressing” There's no need for quotes around suppressing as it was suppressed, objectively. > they were awfully bad at it It was done to sway an election, which went the way was desired, and without any legal blowback. That is not being "awfully bad at it". > as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. But at the time and when it was most…

I was there at the time and I was very aware of the story. At no point was it difficult to learn more. References to the story were posted everywhere. Anyone who wanted to be aware of it was aware and could easily read it.

Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp, I encourage you to visit china and research the subject. Compare the efforts you mentioned were used to suppress the hunter biden story with what is outlined here, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/03/a-look-at-the-many-ways-ch... and you will see how awfully bad the us gov is at censorship.

If the government was so concerned about trump as you say, then why did the same fbi re open an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server just weeks before the 2016 election?

Actually, tell you what, if you believe that the efforts to censor the hunter biden laptop story and tiannamen square are equivalent, I will make a bet. I will pay to print up two shirts: one with “hunter biden is a criminal” and a QR code to the New York post article. The other will say “remember June 5, 1989” with a QR code to the Wikipedia article titled “tank man”.

Wear both shirts in public outside the US capitol and take selfies. Then wear both shirts out in Beijing. Hell just try to get through customs wearing the June 5 shirt and let me know how that goes. I’ll pay for the shirts.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#773

Post by clouddrover »

astrange wrote: post #386
clouddrover wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where Kunal Nayar grew is insignificant. Not when it comes to his accent. It's wholly unsurprising that someone who grew up in India speaks English with an Indian accent. That isn't "mocking" his accent. That's just what his accent is. > I am not sure whether you are Indian or not, but if you fail to see Weak. If you can't demonstrate where this supposed racism is in the show then I'd suggest you need to start cons…

Having a TV actor speak in their natural accent might be mocking them, if it's normal to have them fake a different one. eg David Tennant uses his Scottish accent for jokes in a show where he normally sounds English

> Having a TV actor speak in their natural accent might be mocking them

It isn't. You might as well say that because Matt Smith's sonic screwdriver was bigger than David Tennant's that's mocking David (but it, too, isn't):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcxm-EStpd4

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#774

Post by the_af »

ascv wrote: post #495
the_af wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's censorship? I don't think it implies that, but to be honest, the general implication here on HN is that China is the current Big Bad and everything they do is uniquely bad. It's not spelled out, exactly, but that's how I read many comments here. It may be just me, but that' s the vibe I get from HN in relation to China. > But the regularity with which thi…

> That's just silly. China hasn't infiltrated HN. This kind of assumption is naive (no offense) and reminds me of the denialism regarding Russian disinformation. You do not need to "infiltrate" the site with "agents". It's fairly easy to write a script checking the front page for mentions of China and manually checking the thread to possibly respond with a comment. Before dismissing concerns like this as conspiratori…

People arguing here about US foreign policy or censorship are neither bots nor Chinese agents. I'm not naive in believing this.

> The CCP is hostile to many Western values (e.g. free speech) and they are a primary geopolitical antagonist to the U.S. It's not unreasonable for a mostly U.S. user base to see the worst in CCP behavior or be biased against the CCP.

That's neither here nor there. This is what I'm actually replying to:

> Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's censorship?

And my answer is: maybe not the article itself, but everything that gets said here on HN (where the article got quoted) has that implication. In fact, your very answer has that explicit implication! So you are proving my point.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#775

Post by mnsc »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #766
mnsc wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about stereotypes is that they are not just harmless props only to be used in comedy. They are common simplifications that we all use to some extent whether we like it or not. But some stereotypes are more harmful than others because they are used in very non-funny contexts to justify violence and oppression. And when you use those stereotypes in a funny-ha-ha way, you get some cheap laughs but at the same…

So, are we not allowed to joke anymore? Or if you're going the SJW way, are we only alowed to joke about american white men?

Yes, yes that is what I said. No fun! Having fun and enjoying oneself is the road to outright fascism. You laugh, you kill babies. It's as simple as that.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#776

Post by the_af »

thegrimmest wrote: post #380
the_af wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Talking about sex is taboo because having sex is taboo. I don't see one being necessarily linked to the other. Murder and violence are "taboos" yet adults talk about them all the time. Especially in TV shows. > Having sex is taboo because if women have sex with more than one man I don't see the link. If having sex with multiple men was taboo, then discussing or having sex with a single man would not necessarily be…

Universal, cross-cultural taboos haven't generally adjusted to the last 60 or so years of innovation in birth control. The realities that gave rise to them are ever present in an agrarian, low-tech economy. (not just human) Males need to be sure of paternity. Males who don't mind whose children they are raising aren't well selected for. This should be apparent to anyone who has ever watched a nature documentary. Huma…

I tend to disregard this "common sense" pop culture knowledge, because it's one of those things people say without evidence, and which often tend to be wrong.

I would love to see someone explain the link between taboos about sex and male paternity claims, but so far I see not a single (even dubious) reference from subject matter experts, so I will continue being skeptical about this claim.

"It's obvious!" doesn't convince me.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#777

Post by mnsc »

mbg721 wrote: post #767
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, are we not allowed to joke anymore? Or if you're going the SJW way, are we only alowed to joke about american white men?

There are jokes that aren't at anyone's expense, but they're mostly puns, and not every pun is safe.

Not every pun is safe but every pun should be created in a SAFE environment to enable alignment, collaboration, and delivery across large numbers of agile teams!

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#778

Post by alldayeveryday »

wizofaus wrote: post #393
thegrimmest wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why would something being a default imply that there is no real disadvantage to adopting the alternative position? Taking other examples, if the default is for women to have sex with only a single man, why is it implied that there are no disadvantages to women having sex with many men? At least in the way I think of defaults, the value of the default vs the alternative is an entirely different variable.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#779

Post by schnable »

sschueller wrote: post #666
S201 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the people of China didn't choose this: their oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.

Neither did the majority of Americans watching non-cable television. Instead a small religious minority got their say what was profanity and what was not.

I don't think it's accurate to imply that at the time of strictest FCC rules only a small minority of Americans thought the standards were appropriate.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#780

Post by koheripbal »

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…

> I don’t consider stereotypes funny.

I suspect people who say this DO find stereotypes funny - just stereotypes of people they consider to be the "other" side of the political spectrum from you. So it's really just hypocritical virtue signaling.

Post reply on HN