Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 365 posts

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#261

Post by SllX »

munk-a wrote: post #249
jdm2212 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is a country with rule of law enforcing its laws. The other is an autocracy enforcing the whims of the current ruler.

I agree it's a bad idea to crush the will of the people under our feet and force them to bend to our will - which is why I completely disagree with your statement. I dislike China's government but I feel like America, with it's track record, really shouldn't start talking about how nice regime change would be. For the time being, while the government may be autocratic, it is enforcing it's law and you'd be hard press…

An autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#262

Post by mikestew »

Konnstann wrote: post #183
mikestew wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a white man with upper-middle class money to afford good lawyers, I can tell a cop to piss off when they're out of line and suffer fewer repercussions than others. I might go to jail for the evening (no biggie, I've traveled that road), but come Monday morning me and Ms. Pit Bull Lawyer, Esq. go smooth it over with the judge. If it even gets that far...'cuz, you know, I'm white. This could all be in my head, but b…

Anybody with good enough lawyers can tell a cop to piss off, you might even get the cop on a hate crime if you're non-white. I've got the same amount of anecdotes to suggest the opposite. My dad got pulled over because he didn't stop at a stop sign for the mandatory 3-mississippi in our neighborhood, and no lack of melanin in his skin would have been enough to prevent the ticket.

What I hear you saying is that in a hypothetical world where one can change race like changing a shirt, when confronted by on overbearing cop you'd choose "Black Man, size M" as soon as you'd choose "White Man, size L". And whilst telling the fine officer to piss off, you stand equal chance of living long enough to even need a lawyer no matter which race you chose that day. If I'm hearing correctly, I strongly disagree, but such are different perspectives.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#263

Post by [deleted] »

rusk wrote: post #258
andrepd wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed. A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with…

> I don't see why such a fuss Snowflake got triggered

[deleted]

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#264

Post by stickfigure »

jimclegg wrote: post #243
jdm2212 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate issues with China banning memes: 1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances 2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society c…

>A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot. China has mechanisms to change laws but they have to be routed through the proper channels. From what I understand, individuals can complain all they want, as long as they don't organize outside of these designated channels. This definitely pisses off the % of western governments that use "grassroots" movements…

"Individuals can complain all they want, as long as it is in their own homes, with no more than two individuals present, and they must be blood-related."

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#265

Post by munk-a »

SllX wrote: post #261
munk-a wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's a bad idea to crush the will of the people under our feet and force them to bend to our will - which is why I completely disagree with your statement. I dislike China's government but I feel like America, with it's track record, really shouldn't start talking about how nice regime change would be. For the time being, while the government may be autocratic, it is enforcing it's law and you'd be hard press…

An autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.

Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#266

Post by htfu »

barry-cotter wrote: post #20
wjoe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections" Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare. Culturally, the US seems less tolerant of free speech than plenty of other places in the world. Obviously China is orders of magnitude…

>> The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections. > Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare. There is at least a very good case to be made that the US has by far the strongest free speech guarantee. Commonwealth countries an…

How does some countries “Holocaust denial laws, bans on swastikas” (not EU-wide), or “the ECHR deciding that saying Mohamed was a paedophile” (court refusing to overrule a local restriction on speech doesn't somehow make the standing blasphemy ruling any less specific to Austria...) indicate other European countries having "very weak" commitments to free speech?

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#267

Post by davidw »

StaticRedux wrote: post #66
dekhn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i certainly don't forget. I've been watching Russia and China from a very safe position of privilege in the US for many years. The last time I really worried was when I used to post dumb stuff on usenet in college, but in retrospect, I was never really at risk.

It's not privilege. It's a right the country has fought and died for for over 200 years. It's a principle the country was founded on. "Privilege" has lost all meaning in today's world. It's just a word to throw around to slow how "woke" you are. Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights. You may have been Lucky to have been born in the US, but n…

> "Privilege" has lost all meaning in today's world. It's just a word to throw around to slow how "woke" you are.

It gets thrown around a lot, but it absolutely has a meaning.

Ever know anyone who says that "they ignore politics"? In many cases, those people come from a place that they can do that because it doesn't affect them that much, and certainly not as much as other people.

For instance: today the supreme court in the US is deciding whether it's ok to fire people for merely being gay.

To not have to worry about that is 'privilege'.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#268

Post by andrepd »

Konnstann wrote: post #260
andrepd wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent: "substantive objective measurements show that nonwhite people are subject to systemic racism" You: "yeah but I grew up in so and so and I never saw anything like that, plus I have a friend who is black and bla bla bla" Come on...

The "substantive objective measurements" don't even need to be debunked, the article does that itself. My example wasn't to illustrate "no discrimination doesn't happen" it was to illustrate the fact that maybe, the relative wealth of different geographic areas, combined with racial demographics and crime rates, could have more to do with policing practices that JUST skin color. I specifically didn't bring up any of…

The data shows that income is by far the biggest factor, but also that it is not the only factor. Income is the biggest differentiator, and therefore the priority issue to tackle, but "skin color" discrimination does happen and it is a factor to explain these disparities. These are two separate things that are important to remember.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#269

Post by aeternum »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200
azangru wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights. But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family? > You may have been Lucky to have…

> But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family? The reason this framing is despicable is that rights and privileges are not the same. Being able to afford a Lexus is a privilege. Not everyone has i…

You can't just say free speech is a right. Every country including the US has restrictions on speech to varying degrees.

The US draws the line at true threats, and inciting imminent lawless action, among others.

New Zealand now draws the line at simply sharing a manifesto along with anything else decreed by the Chief Censor.

China is much more strict, but who's to say where the line should be drawn? Not even western governments agree.

Re: 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology

#270

Post by jdm2212 »

PKop wrote: post #254
jdm2212 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate issues with China banning memes: 1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances 2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society c…

Both points are perfectly encapsulated in UK hate speech laws. They subvert free speech with the heckler's veto, and there's nothing anyone can do about them, "democratic" or not.

People in the UK can vote out the government and change the laws that way. People in China can't.
Post reply on HN