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

671–680 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#671

Post by noitpmeder »

the_optimist wrote: post #379
ryanobjc wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the shows were written before wokeness was invented, so we're gonna need a new theory.

Sorry, no. You don't get to be a college professor teaching woke theory without spending decades polishing and teaching it. As someone who have been well-exposed to US higher education for decades, I can speak from experience. The theories that embody wokeness have been taught for at least the last 30 years.

I disagree with your main point -- subjects do not need to be well established before being presented in a college curriculum.

Case in point, there is a class at UCLA titled "Law of Elon Musk". I assume we both agree this class hasn't been polished for decades. And I imagine it's decidedly different than any prior class in related topics.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#672

Post by noitpmeder »

lwansbrough wrote: post #78

Interesting to see what passes for a joke on The Big Bang Theory. I knew the show was bad but wow. Perhaps just as surprising is the author's suggestion that a xenophobic remark about a Chinese restaurant is "harmless". I'm not even particularly sensitive when it comes to race relations, but that's just such a negative stereotype it's hard to ignore. I despise Chinese censorship, but I would support the Chinese gover…

"I would support the government blocking purely on the grounds that [I believe] it stinks".

This is an unimaginably slippery slope. I think MOST american media these days stinks, but would not support any form of the above sentiment.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#673

Post by noitpmeder »

ginger2016 wrote: post #326
briantakita wrote: post #129

Companies & Governments in the US & West censor for political reasons. Why is this any different?

Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” won’t be shown on network television in US.

As the sibling comment demonstrates, this is not at all a result of Government action.

To be honest, I can't think of ANY current-event-protraying foreignly-produced media that would be shown on networked television in the US.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#674

Post by tsimionescu »

kuschku wrote: post #659
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong. There's no such thing as "right to rent video." You could 100% buy a bunch of videos and start renting them out today, and it would be completely legal. Netflix does this today for their DVD rental business. This is also why libraries are legal. You can't buy a DVD and charge tickets to see the DVD played by you. You can't stream the DVD's contents over the Internet. But you can absolutely r…

In the current age of gigabit FTTH connections, I wonder how the situation would be if the service provider would just allow you to rent a dvd drive in a datacenter that's connected via regular sata, just tunneled through the internet. That'd avoid all the "breaking the DRM", "modifying the data", etc. As provider you just offer a device that loads dvds from a user's in-datacenter storage cabinet into their in-datace…

Another comment [0] pointed out that a version of this was already tried, and it was found to still be a public performance. Not sure how much the details of the technologies used would affect the ruling, but probably not enough.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32645286

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#675

Post by archi42 »

still_grokking wrote: post #414
archi42 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't find info on a ban. It was heavily/absurdly redacted due to the Nazi topics (1966 was two decades after the war), but some of those changes were promptly reverted. Can't say if that was due to the censor bureau, or if the censorship was a decision in the company. Anyway, since it's VHS release you can buy the uncut version legally, and sellers are allowed to advert for it. It is rated as suitable from the…

Never heard of this movie but it says clearly on the German Wikipedia page: > In Deutschland wurde der Film zunächst in einer stark gekürzten Fassung gezeigt, in der sämtliche Bezüge auf den Nationalsozialismus fehlten und der Film mit der Hochzeit Marias endet und nicht – wie in der Originalfassung – mit der Flucht der Trapp-Familie aus Österreich. [eng]: > In Germany, the film was initially shown in a heavily edite…

Next sentence: Schließlich erwirkte das amerikanische Produktionsstudio jedoch, dass dieser dritte Akt des Films auch in der deutschen Fassung gezeigt wird.

Translation: Eventually, however, the American production studio managed to ensure that this third act of the film was also shown in the German version.

Wikipedia isn't clear on the process or the timeline (and there is no source given), but I read it like this was "fixed" during the initial cinematic run.

Plus, whatever the cutting was, it's available uncut since at least the home video release, and I presume it was shown in cinemas uncut after at most a month. And the current rating is FSK-6 (suitable for children over 6). So it's not banned, and never was. The closest it gets is the 1966 initial cinema cut (which I agree to call a ban, but as stated, from the data given I don't believe lasted for long).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#676

Post by coffeeblack »

Sabinus wrote: post #613
lettergram wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have a question for someone very interested in freedom of speech and censorship. We know that geopolitical adversaries weaponize narratives to cause destabilization of the body politic of other nations. We know that the internet and social media have exploded in popularity in the last 20 years, giving 'foreign actors' unprecedented access to citizens. What should a government of a 'free' nation do to counter that d…

I can tell you what they shouldn’t do: abandon the core principles of their own society.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#677

Post by kshacker »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #661
Thorrez wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, are they allowed to rent out the backup copy if the original breaks? I thought rental was based on first sale doctrine and backup copies are based on fair use. I'm not sure if you can combine the 2.

well I don't know either, but what purpose would a video rental shop have in making a backup copy in case the primary gets damaged if not to rent it out?

Well once the disk was worn out, and you had a backup, you could re-sell the backup

Of course this may be abuse of the fair use backup copy, but when talking digital, we are anyways inventing philosophies.

Other way could be the backup could be entitled to "one last rental" to recoup last 4 bucks or so. I think that would be fair use but others may not.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#678

Post by LeonB »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #651
jjeaff wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While some Mormons may have "weird puritan" values, simply wanting censorship options for some movies is something that many families would like to have, not just Mormons. And I don't think it's necessarily puritan to want to cut out that one or two scenes of a head exploding in an otherwise family friendly flick.

I actually agree, but I got the sense that the company being mormon was meant to bias the reader of that comment towards thinking that the company was in the wrong. I hoped to drive the conversation past that prejudice by conceding and dismissing it rather than pushing back against it, because I felt that on this forum pushback would likely prompt a religious flamewar rather than a discussion about digital rental. Us…

I like the reasoning given above — how you tried to short circuit the unwanted discussion.

A friend of mine used to make family friendly edits of films just for his own kids when they were little.

Sometimes I try to make family friendly versions of otherwise vulgar jokes. It’s an interesting art form. Very niche.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#679

Post by anshumankmr »

biggu wrote: post #652
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…

I live in India and have a Netflix account here. There is no censoring

I think Amazon Prime did censor the first scene from the Boys season 3 (I think) but I can't bear to re-watch it and compare it.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#680

Post by MichaelCollins »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #236
wizofaus wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).

Totalitarian governments seem to be naturally disposed towards controlling people’s sexual behaviours, sometimes with downright absurd results. (The early Soviet Union moved from abolishing marriage in favour of cohabitation to actively promoting it; the official stance on abortion, IIRC, flipped several times; and while the equilibrium was extremely prudish—“there is no sex in the USSR”—the adult literacy campaign o…

> But the fixation on sex, in particular, seems to go beyond that, and yet it’s fairly universal among them.

Sex is how workers create workers, a means of production. So of course they try to seize control of it.

Post reply on HN