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

881–890 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#881

Post by dirtyid »

computerfriend wrote: post #858
dirtyid wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> did not and could not choose Implying formal enfranchisement is required to choose when being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity. There's a reason Chinese trust in government is near record levels compared to declining trust in western systems which sure are good at choosing but…

> being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity. Laughs in Hong Kong. But sure, look at China's long history of protest and tell me they respect the will of the people. You're right about one thing, "serenity" (or "harmony") is the name of the game. Lots of ways to pacify the people, g…

>There's no reliable polling on Chinese trust in government.

Lots of long term systematic survey/polling methods from western institutions in last two decades (i.e. pre-Xi) all comport with basic trend that PRC citizens don't trust local gov but trust central gov. One could be cheeky as insinuate Chinese polling more reliable than western polling that has many predictive failures vs CCP polling because CCP still in power and PRC hasn't collapsed but have only gotten institutionally stronger.

>Laughs in Hong Kong.

Laughs in mainland PRC who overwhelmingly wanted to tame HK. 99% of population versus I'm familiar with protests in PRC, local protests get loud enough, concerns get forwarded to central gov... and where feasbile gets addressed, because central gov actually scared shitless to mass mobilization. Except CCP tends to deliver tangible results not like western short term virtual signalling.

>giving them what they want is only one ... >pacify the people

Isn't that governance 101, preserve peace and give people what they want?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#882

Post by wawjgreen »

immibis wrote: post #865
wawjgreen wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.

Would you be comfortable if you saw Buck Angel walking into the toilet where your teenage daughter was? P.S. the reason people don't bother debating people like you, is that it's usually like playing chess with a pigeon and they know this.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#883

Post by est »

wodenokoto wrote: post #855
est wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No DVD carts, but NAS is somewhat popular. Xunlei or BaiduPan is insanely popular.

I’m assuming NAS is a local server with a hard drive. What is is Xunlei and BaiduPan?

> What is is Xunlei and BaiduPan?

downloader software and storage service.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#884

Post by [deleted] »

elliekelly wrote: post #523
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.

I would absolutely pay for this service if it allowed me mute the audio during door knocks, door bells, dog barks, and squeaky toys. Have you ever seen a dog instantly wake up from a deep sleep because they’ve been summoned to play? You’re basically obligated to pause whatever you’re watching and play.

[deleted]

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#885

Post by School-Cotton »

philistine wrote: post #174
vorpalhex wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important part of virtual signaling is that it has nothing to do with it's stated aims. Virtue signaling such as calling out the college cafeteria for serving sushi as "cultural appropriation"[0] is not because the people doing the signaling care about the art of sushi or the Japanese culture - it's narcissistic posturing by the person doing the signaling. Another term for this is "white savior complex". In many…

Yeah, when you're part of a culture that suffers from cultural appropriation, you understand it. Although my culture suffers a very benign culinary example (poutine), it allows me to understand the power play, and how I wouldn't want others decrying the appropriation my people are living.

Poutine is actually a pretty classic example of the bad kind of cultural appropriation. I wouldn't call it benign. Non-Quebecker Canadians are happy to claim Poutine as a "typically Canadian" dish (erasing its connection with Quebec specifically) despite many of them holding Quebec culture in extreme contempt.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#886

Post by brigandish »

brigandish wrote: post #851
snowwrestler wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuck is trying to blame the FBI to draw attention away from the fact that it was his company that decided to limit the sharing of that story. The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech. What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors s…

> Zuck is trying to blame the FBI to draw attention away from the fact that it was his company that decided to limit the sharing of that story. That may well be true. > The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech. If the mafia offer your business protection you could also make your own decision. Would that be freedom of conscience? > What…

In the last 24 hours[1]:

> The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure violates the First Amendment.

> Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals, which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal government has to make life difficult for these businesses through public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is what it gets.

[1] https://reason.com/2022/09/01/these-emails-show-how-the-bide...

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#887

Post by dang »

fortuna86 wrote: post #871
briantakita3 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

Please do not break the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how bad another commenter's posts are or you feel they are. It only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#888

Post by bacchusracine »

lliamander wrote: post #650
bacchusracine wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I, as a citizen and a consumer, want to know what rights I have when I purchase a product. Step one would probably be actually purchasing something instead of licensing it.

VidAngel's model was that you are purchasing the disk.

No, see everything is licensed. You cannot purchase anything. So yeah, first we need to see about actually purchasing things, then we can talk. Try again.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#889

Post by srvmshr »

anthropodie wrote: post #640
4m1rk wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't expect India! Iran for sure does that too. The zoom part was kind of nostalgic :) they are getting better and better (just technically). They were even covering women bodies! Shit load of money and resources for these nonesense censorships.

I'm from India and I have seen shows like BBT, HIMYM, Friends, etc,. dozen of times on different national televisions and then again on streaming platforms. I have not seen a single instance of censorship in these shows(except for subtitles replacing words like Fuck with ** on national television). I'm not saying we don't censor at all but it's definitely not as bad as this post or GP is saying.

In India, movies & shows that are shown in theaters and broadcast media are subject to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). However majority of American sitcoms are OTT and hence still not under the purview of CBFC.

Let's not dwell too far for an example:) "Sacred Games" had enough sex, nudity and cussing - far more than average American sitcom

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#890

Post by jlawson »

Spivak wrote: post #745
jlawson wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’m not inverting is meaning, I just have a broader definition of what things constitute violent acts of suppression of beliefs. I see this misunderstanding constantly online, that hate speech, *phobia, and *ism is an expression of belief rather than an act of violence that suppresses the speech of the group being targeted. Here, let’s talk about the person who literally replied to your post. Quoting it since I’m sur…

Words are not violence by definition. Please stop abusing language to create inferences which don't work.

Someone else's words don't justify your use of force/violence. If you think they do, your values are broken and you're simply another authoritarian tyrant trying to crush the ethnic/cultural/religious/ideological group you don't like. Everyone in history has weak excuses for their tyranny like this. --

Also note that it's trivially easy to short-circuit your argument just by someone saying you're being white-phobic or misandric. Well, now you get to explain why _this_ "whateverphobic" statement is "violence" which demands a violent response, but _that_ "whateverphobic" isn't.

Ultimately you've just defined your beliefs as not violent, and others' as violent and denied the very legitimacy of any thoughts beside your own. Perfect authoritarian tyrant behavior.

Post reply on HN