[HN Gopher] The Big [Censored] Theory
___________________________________________________________________
The Big [Censored] Theory
Author : feross
Score : 679 points
Date : 2022-08-29 17:34 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pudding.cool)
(TXT) w3m dump (pudding.cool)
| dqpb wrote:
| This is what OpenAI wants to do to AI. Censored, neutered,
| prudish, anti-human. It's not "safety", it's sick authoritarian
| control.
| ericskiff wrote:
| Aside from the fascinating topic, the data visualization and
| legwork gathering the data for this article is outstanding!
| m463 wrote:
| I also noticed that all images/video/css loads from the same
| site.
|
| I think this might just be a high-quality site, but I can't
| help but wonder if this prevents youtube or some other service
| from taking things down via supurious DMCA requests.
| elsherbini wrote:
| I found the repo that powers the article, cool to browse!
|
| https://github.com/the-pudding/censorship
| dqpb wrote:
| > Most scenes are in the sex category, where characters mentioned
| sexual descriptions, body parts, and other relevant languages.
|
| Meanwhile, they're looking forward to a nice population decline.
| Idiots.
| livinglist wrote:
| I'm very glad I was able to move out of this country... China's
| censorship got much much worse after Xi Jinping stepped into
| power. I remember around 2010 when I was in middle school, I was
| still able to watch YouTube and browse Wikipedia, and ppl were
| able make criticism on government and incidents without worrying
| too much about their own safety. Right now China is filled with
| misled and brainwashed ppl that believe in everything said and
| done by the government....
| yegle wrote:
| Friends: the globe was censored, presumably because no one can be
| sure if Taiwan is marked as part of China:
| https://twitter.com/williamlong/status/1492775822859517957
|
| There's also a funny clip when Ross is trying to explain his ex-
| wife is a Lesbian. This part was censored, so you see Ross is
| about to say something, next his parents act like surprised. It
| actually made the scene funnier.
| jimcavel888 wrote:
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > This added up to over one hour of deleted scenes, or nearly
| three full episodes of purely censored content
|
| I would like to watch the edit of only deleted scenes strung
| together.
| drfuchs wrote:
| In the charming 1988 Best Foreign Film "Cinema Paradiso," set
| in a small pre-war Italian town, the projectionist has to
| preview every imported American film for the local priest, who
| sits and rings a bell at each scene containing a kiss so they
| can be spliced out before the paying audience arrives. Spoiler:
| In the heartwarming ending, the young boy who had befriended
| him comes back to town after the death of the projectionist, to
| find a gift has been left for him: A reel of film, which he
| projects for himself, and finds it's all the years of removed
| Hollywood kisses, spliced together one right after the other.
| gumby wrote:
| Looking at the examples on this well-done site that would
| actually be pretty boring. The cuts appear to be about stuff
| that's pretty innocuous to us.
| munk-a wrote:
| Unfortunately it's still the Big Bang Theory.
| powerhour wrote:
| You didn't include the laugh track and yet I still heard it.
| jedberg wrote:
| The producers swear up and down to this day that they did
| not use a laugh track. That that was legit audience
| reaction.
| gavinray wrote:
| Is the author around?
|
| The visualization below _" So the question has to be asked: what
| kind of content has been removed, and why?_"
|
| Is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
|
| Could you share how this was made?
| c0unt wrote:
| the website (pudding.cool) has tons of other articles showing
| off the visualization and its great
| elsherbini wrote:
| (I'm not the author). Here is the repo that powers the article:
| https://github.com/the-pudding/censorship , which forks a
| svelte-kit starter template most new pudding.cool articles
| start with.
|
| The bit that actually makes the divs for each scene that was
| cut is here: https://github1s.com/the-
| pudding/censorship/blob/HEAD/src/co... , and the data is here:
| https://github1s.com/the-pudding/censorship/blob/HEAD/src/da...
| balentio wrote:
| That's a whole lot of rules for a country that A) Most likely
| unleashed a bioweapon and B) has a terrible human rights history.
| A naked back is not at all in the same category as "eating
| unwanted children" or whatever rural Chinese people are doing
| nowadays.
| OOPMan wrote:
| Imagine trying to promote reproductive rates while censoring
| sexual activity...
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| A fascinating look at how The Big Bang Theory is censored around
| the world.
| phantom_of_cato wrote:
| The BBC does something similar to its reruns of old shows. [1]
|
| [1]: The Telegraph: BBC makes 'woke cuts' to archives, including
| Dad's Army https://archive.is/Y5nJw
| [deleted]
| omegaworks wrote:
| Kinda weird that author categorized the incest joke "Howard: I
| lost my virginity to my cousin Jeanie" under LGBTQ censorship.
| When she mentioned the justification: "China has encouraged
| straight couples to marry and raise two to three children." it
| makes some sense, but incestuous relationships are not considered
| by themselves "LGBTQIA2S+"
| drewtato wrote:
| The implication is that Chinese policy considers both incest
| and LGBTQ as abnormal relationships.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| "+", apparently.
| omegaworks wrote:
| The plus signifies support and acceptance of those who live
| with HIV.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| I looked at 5 sources and could not verify this statement.
|
| Do you have any that state this?
| omegaworks wrote:
| >Some see the plus at the end of LGBTQIA+ to signify
| support and acceptance of those who live with HIV.
|
| https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-the-plus-in-lgbtqia-
| mean-...
|
| Though I'll admit the contentiousness of this
| designation, I don't think the intent of "+" was to
| include incest.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| Thanks for qualifying.
|
| After reading that article that in various places calls
| out...
|
| - "The plus is widely taken as a symbol to represent
| self-identifying members of the community who are not
| included in the LGBTQIA acronym"
|
| - "The plus in LGBTQIA+ not only represents other sexual
| labels and identifiers, but also the experiences of those
| within the community."
|
| besides the quote you already mentioned which includes
| the weasely "Some say", I personally don't really see as
| a strong of a consensus as your first comment suggests,
| but appreciate the perspective.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think the + just signifies that the movement is willing
| to include groups that aren't explicitly mentioned because
|
| 1) the acronym can only get so long because it becomes
| alphabet soup.
|
| 2) the default posture is to ally with groups that haven't
| been included yet.
| lmkg wrote:
| While the term "LGBTQ+" is highlighted in blue, every instance
| of it also includes a parenthetical about "or other atypical
| heterosexual relationships." The labelling is awkward but this
| seems to me to be there specifically to avoid applying the
| LGBTQ+ label to incest jokes.
|
| The author was raised in another culture and I'm trying to give
| them the benefit of the doubt here. There are plenty of
| cultures (even in the US!) that would lump together queerness
| and incest and forms of sexual transgression. The fact that the
| author included the parenthetical means that they are aware of
| the distinction. But the perspective of the Chinese censors is
| probably to consider non-normative sex as a single category.
|
| Perhaps the author intended to highlight the negative effects
| of censorship by emphasizing the largest and most significant
| effect of that censorship?
| omegaworks wrote:
| The labeling is awkward, that's what I intended to highlight.
| "Non-normative relationships" or "non-procreative
| relationships" would have been a great alternative.
|
| >There are plenty of cultures (even in the US!) that would
| lump together queerness and incest and forms of sexual
| transgression.
|
| And it's a not so great thing to do when the goal is safety
| and acceptance of the queer community.
|
| >The author was raised in another culture and I'm trying to
| give them the benefit of the doubt here.
|
| I'm not ascribing any kind of malice or ill intent, just
| trying to highlight a (to some cultures, important!)
| distinction that was not made.
| dmurray wrote:
| bobsmooth wrote:
| Nice to know that incest is now deserving of a civil rights
| movement.
| strbean wrote:
| They mention "LGBTQ+ (and atypical heterosexual relationships)"
| omegaworks wrote:
| Ah. I missed that on the first read. The visualizations lump
| them all together.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ascar wrote:
| Side note: the article mentions canned laughter in TBBT rather
| early. TBBT actually doesn't use canned laughter but uses
| laughter from the live audience for its laugh track.
|
| I pity that I didn't have the chance to visit the studios and be
| part of that laugh track :(
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I think they must actually use bottled laughter, bottles of
| nitrous oxide positioned strategically around their studio
| audience.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| It's normally a mix of both. All such shows will heavily
| edit/enhance the audience laugh track during post production.
| vlunkr wrote:
| Also scenes are occasionally filmed outside the studio where
| there is no live audience.
| ascar wrote:
| Afaik they prefilm these and show them on a screen to the
| audience at the right moment of the episode and then
| capture that reaction.
| xdennis wrote:
| > TBBT actually doesn't use canned laughter
|
| I don't believe that one bit. Just because they have an
| audience, doesn't mean they don't edit the laugh track. And
| just because the laugh happened in real time, it doesn't mean
| it's authentic.
|
| Even for live TV shows, they prod the audience into laughing.
| This is made clear when they laugh at awkward times, when
| nothing funny is being said.
| ascar wrote:
| If you've ever experienced a group of tv/movie enthusiasts
| watching something you would believe that laughs happening at
| awkward times are not just possible, but I would rather see
| them as a supporting argument for real laughter than a
| rebuttal.
|
| One of my favorite moments was watching Kick Ass in a sneak
| preview. No one knew which movie would be shown and Kick Ass
| starts with a shock moment of a guy shooting a little girl
| with a revolver. One guy in the back started laughing so hard
| and it was so inappropriate that the whole theater burst into
| laughter.
|
| Doing a bit of post production on the real laughter doesn't
| make it canned laughter.
| nindalf wrote:
| Most shows that use canned laughter (Friends, Seinfeld etc.)
| were filmed in front of an audience. It's not worth the hassle
| to set up audio recoding for the audience, especially because
| people aren't reliable. They might not laugh at the right
| moment, one or two audience members might have a weird laugh,
| they might be too soft or loud.
|
| The audience reaction is useful feedback for the actors, but
| the laughter is canned.
| ascar wrote:
| Well, TBBT is especially known for recording and using the
| audience laughter. That's why I explicitly mentioned it and
| it creates some interesting moments the producers didn't even
| intend to be funny. You can find multiple sources for that
| like point 10 here [1]. There are some YouTube videos giving
| deeper insight into the process but I don't have them at
| hand.
|
| [1] https://www.cbr.com/big-bang-theory-annoyed-anger-fans/
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Seinfeld didn't use canned laughter except to mask editing
| cuts as is the norm for shows with an audience.
| ryanobjc wrote:
| I've done a studio tour of TBBT set, and they have mics set
| up for audience recording.
|
| I'm not sure what your "worth the hassle" is about, they
| rented the same sound stage for YEARS to record the show.
| They're hardly tearing it down and setting it up daily!
| pessimizer wrote:
| No modern sitcom filmed in front of a live studio audience
| uses canned laughter. They may sweeten laughter with
| overdubs, but they're not throwing away the real thing for
| the fake stuff.
|
| Live audience laughter completely changes the timing for
| 3-camera sitcoms, because the actors have to wait for it to
| finish. Setting up audio recording for the audience is
| trivial.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I can see how this might backfire. You notice a censored jump and
| start to feel the itch of curiosity as to what it concealed. I
| had to watch several of the censored scenes whereas I would have
| never just randomly watched clips of the show.
|
| Also, love the presentation on this page.
| joshstrange wrote:
| That was my first thought as well. Those skips would drive me
| crazy and would send me searching for the "raw" episodes.
| Wanting to know what was said would only be a part of the
| issue, the other would be how jarring it is and how you never
| know if it was a censored clip or if the media "skipped".
| jrumbut wrote:
| It's apparent because you're used to the rhythm of English
| speech and the forms of American sitcoms.
|
| I'm not sure if I would notice a Chinese show was censored.
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| It's also unnecessary to cut them so badly. It's really
| disturbing.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| aka "The Streisand Effect".
| dirtyid wrote:
| 90s kids in the west grew up on censored looney Tunes and
| "localized" anime like sailor moon, I remember some barely
| viral discussions of comparisons with OG version and sentiment
| was basically meh.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Disney is now censoring their old cartoons. They have a ghost
| hunter episode where they remove all the firearms. It's
| annoying to watch the new version
| andruby wrote:
| We (the HN crowd, often living in less-censored societies)
| would be very curious.
|
| I'd like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and
| those living in more censored places.
|
| My assumption is that they take it for granted and just
| continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even
| find the uncensored clips.
| Kye wrote:
| I still encounter people who don't know "Teenage Mutant Hero
| Turtles" was a heavily censored version of the real show.
| They realize how weird the edits are in retrospect, but it
| didn't register much/at all for them at the time.
| pimlottc wrote:
| > "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles"
|
| Are you referring to the UK version of the 1987 animated
| "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" TV series? I never realized
| it was considered controversial! [0]
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtl
| es_(...
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| TIL of Hero Turtles! That literally blows my mind.
|
| On this, Dragon Ball is _heavily edited_ too
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Heavens above, Myrtle! That turtle is a ninja! With
| nunchaku! Someone think of the children!
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _nunchaku_
|
| Huh, you weren't kidding. Banned and censored in the UK,
| banned in Canada, Germany, and several US states...
| because of Bruce Lee? Bizarre.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunchaku#Legality
| dwighttk wrote:
| So is Napoleon Dyanamite censored too? I think he
| mentions nunchucks
| [deleted]
| koonsolo wrote:
| The cuts are mainly obvious because of the sound glitch. I
| think when they would have a better crossover of the audio, it
| would be way harder to notice.
| mftb wrote:
| It absolutely backfires. No one is as successful at selling US
| culture as the US, except all those countries that censor
| exported/imported US culture.
| concordDance wrote:
| This seems untrue. Do more than a fraction of a percent of
| Chinese people watch the uncensored versions of things?
| mftb wrote:
| I have no idea, but I also doubt that's the most effective
| metric for determining people buying/being sold, US
| culture. I think you'd have to sample a wide range of
| metrics to gauge how well US culture has been sold around
| the world. You'd also have to come up with a good
| definition of culture. I'm using a very generous one here,
| including pop-culture, tech-culture and lots of what many
| people might consider trash. But yea, notwithstanding all
| of that, I still support the notion that US culture has
| been sold effectively throughout the world by the US and
| those who have tried to censor it.
| iratewizard wrote:
| Agreed. It's easy to handwave it off. Americans churn out
| propaganda and inject it into every form of media it can.
| Similar to preservatives, some media is more nitrate than
| meat. China cuts it out because it says it's unhealthy to
| consume. China can do that overtly in it's culture war
| because it has never guaranteed not to.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Not on a regular basis, perhaps.
|
| The glitches serve to remind them daily that their
| government is manipulating them.
|
| The dilemma that China's leaders have is that they need an
| educated workforce, capable of logical and critical
| thinking, but they can't stop that workforce thinking
| critically outside work.
| npc54321 wrote:
| Youtube does not allow footage of the recent/outgoing protests
| against banks in China.
| avrionov wrote:
| This is not true!
|
| Here is one example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLdobKqTPB0
| neop1x wrote:
| Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBBnQmRcRI4
|
| The author is says that chinese bots are downvoting it. It may
| or may not be true.
| debacle wrote:
| Interesting that censoring only 3% of what I would regard as a
| very trendy show can eliminate depictions of sexuality, sex,
| religion, and unwanted political commentary.
|
| You can effectively change reality by adjusting a tiny fraction
| of it. This is why the Overton Window is so important.
| chabons wrote:
| That percentage will depend heavily on the show. The Big Bang
| Theory is fairly innocuous. Imagine trying to censor dramas
| like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, or House of Cards to remove
| all of the depictions of sex, drugs, or political commentary.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| I remember watching a standup comedy show by either Eddie
| Murphy or Richard Pryor a long time ago that was heavily
| censored. There were so many bleeps in the program that you
| could barely follow it. It was similar to the recent heavily-
| redacted FBI affidavit that was released and where every
| other sentence seems to be blacked out.
| joshstrange wrote:
| You do realize those are in no way whatsoever related and
| are due to 2 completely different sets of circumstances?
|
| One is a private company (either first or third-party)
| offering a censored version of a piece of media and the
| other is the government redacting things from a document
| that would normally not be released at all (at this stage)
| and the redactions were specifically done to prevent
| witnesses tampering or similar tactics by the accused.
|
| To call those "similar" is just absurd.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| When I used the term 'similar' it had nothing to do with
| the reasoning or methodology behind the censoring. Only
| that the finished product in both cases was sufficiently
| censored that less than half the original content
| remained. It is not just a few select pieces that are cut
| out, it is creating a whole new product that is almost
| unrecognizable when compared to the original.
| joshstrange wrote:
| My apologies then. I read it differently and jumped to
| the wrong conclusion about the point you were making.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show
| whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway
| jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show
| would just not get aired at all.
| permo-w wrote:
| someone should try and get Brass Eye released in China
| swayvil wrote:
| It's a deeper level of censorship. Not only will you refrain
| from thinking about these things in a tolerant light, you will
| refrain from thinking about these things at all.
|
| It chops pieces off reality when you do that.
|
| Censorship is amazing. So popular (downvotes anyone?), so
| casually employed, yet so incredibly destructive.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Indeed. It seems to have had the effect of removing pieces of
| reality.
|
| I had a conversation once with a Chinese national, about an
| article about LGBTQ+ people in China.
|
| "There's no Gay people in China"
|
| (me, points at a picture of 2 young Chinese men in the
| article)
|
| "They're from Hong Kong. There's no Gay people in China."
|
| OK then!
|
| (This was quite a while back, I suspect the same conversation
| today would play out differently, since the popular opinion
| is that HK is in fact part of China)
| okasaki wrote:
| What a bizarre and ridiculous view to form based on one
| conversation.
|
| I'm sure you can find plenty of people in the west who
| believe stupid things. Does that mean that western
| countries are "removing pieces of reality"?
| RajT88 wrote:
| > I'm sure you can find plenty of people in the west who
| believe stupid things. Does that mean that western
| countries are "removing pieces of reality"?
|
| Yes. The past 20 years or so the media ecosystems have
| been trying to do exactly that, at least in the US where
| I live. Remove the bits they don't like, and invent out
| of whole cloth replacement bits.
| aetherane wrote:
| I have heard the same statement several times too. I
| think the point was in relation to the context of
| censorship of LGBTQ content.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Hence 1984's CrimeThink
| jollybean wrote:
| Actually, I think there's a more benign reason and that is
| references to those kinds of things are just a bit below bar
| for normally civil programming.
|
| If you've ever watched the banal things that people go
| through to get something past daytime censors, or, get a PG
| rating for films etc. it's similar.
|
| This is not 'Xi's authoritarian' system so much as 'different
| cultural standards of the moment'.
|
| Respect that in some parts of the world they don't talk or
| joke about STD's in that context.
|
| I wouldn't want to be subject to it, but this is not the kind
| of censorship that's a problem.
|
| Note that in the West, we 'self censor' tons of jokes or
| things that might be a bit off.
|
| Finally - I'm 100% certain there are examples of this kind of
| censorship which are problematic, for example, the mention of
| 'Taiwan' etc..
| peteradio wrote:
| But this is streaming not broadcast daytime television.
| Censoring crude jokes/porn/violence that might be happened
| upon by a toddler flipping the remote makes quite a lot of
| sense.
| swayvil wrote:
| I wonder how China protects its censors from wrong ideas
| (seeing as how they must necessarily come into contact with
| it). Extra indoctrination? Some kind of surveillance
| layercake?
|
| I read a scifi where digital personality-recordings became
| popular for various office/industrial applications. Sorta
| like an AI, but human. They were used for censorship. The
| remedy for ideological contamination? Full reboot every
| morning.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| You choose people based on their loyalty to the party and
| fanatical devotion. It's a pretty straightforward way of
| doing it, heck somewhere else in this thread someone was
| already getting offended at the joke about the chicken.
|
| Some people just have no sense of humour and a fanatical
| devotion to a cause, they are useful if not very wise.
| This is one of those situations where they are useful.
| jollybean wrote:
| Chinese people know about 'STDs' - they just don't put
| them in programming.
|
| I'm sure they all know about Taiwan as well.
|
| So mostly it's just keeping programming in terms of what
| they define as 'civil' - and - with the added element of
| pulling 'political censorship'.
|
| It's about large audiences and averages not about the
| knowledge of a specific thing.
| Sin2x wrote:
| This idea can be easily reversed:
|
| It's a deeper level of indoctrination. When these things are
| covertly inserted in an innocuous sounding show, not only
| will you start thinking about them, you will subconsiously
| think of them in a tolerant light.
|
| China has its own culture and mores, why should it allow that
| kind of soft projection of Western power.
| wozer wrote:
| For some things that might be true.
|
| But when the indoctrination collides with reality in a
| harmful way, it's a different matter. Objectively, it is
| true that gay people exists and that there is no good
| reason to restrict their rights.
| nightpool wrote:
| Sure, but like other people in this thread are saying,
| it's _not_ objectively true that the Chinese restaurant
| down the street is selling you dog meet and pretending
| that it 's chicken, or that Chinese academics in the US
| are siphoning grant money and funneling it to Pyongyang.
| "Pervasive cultural norms colliding with reality" is a
| two-way street.
| cutemonster wrote:
| > China has its own culture and mores
|
| Correction: Xi and the CCP have their own culture and mores
|
| The people, though, want to see The Big Bang Theory
| uncensored.
|
| The people are _different from Xi_. They don 't want the
| same things as he (except for the ones Xi has successfully
| brainwashed, or those who have a highly tribal brain).
|
| > why should it allow that kind of soft projection
|
| That sounds paranoid, I hope you don't mind. Reasoning in
| that way, almost all movies in the world wold be a "soft
| projection" and Nation State attack. But sometimes it's
| just jokes or reality and a good movie ... or would have
| been.
| nightpool wrote:
| > Reasoning in that way, almost all movies in the world
| wold be a "soft projection" and Nation State attack
|
| I mean, I don't think it requires any sort of active
| attack, or paranoia about a malicious attack, to
| recognize that soft power is real and it can influence
| people's behavior even when nobody intended it. The Big
| Bang Theory, as a reflection of American culture, can
| work to perpetuate that culture and serve America's
| interests _even without anybody in America or anybody
| working on the Big Bang Theory intending for that to
| happen_.
|
| Now, in the case of the Big Bang Theory, whether that is
| good or bad is somewhat up to whether you think American-
| culture-as-espoused-by-the-Big-Bang-Theory is good or
| not, but honestly as an American who generally thinks
| American culture is good about some stuff but not
| everything, the Big Bang Theory is pretty far down on the
| list of cultural exports I would consider good or
| important. There's a lot of stuff in the Big Bang Theory
| that I feel ashamed to be associated with, including some
| of the stuff mentioned in this article as cut, like the
| racist jokes about Chinese people.
| okasaki wrote:
| Good thing we have HN user cutemonster to tell us what
| the Chinese people want.
| davemp wrote:
| Please don't post insubstantial comments like this on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| cowtools wrote:
| If the chinese people had the option between the censored
| and uncensored version, which one do you think they would
| prefer?
|
| On an individual level it is obvious that almost no one
| advocates for self-censorship. Most people are only
| enthusiastic about censorship when they are the censor
| and not the censored.
|
| The communist dictatorship is a parasitic form of
| governance, but most cannot escape because they're stuck
| at a local maxima.
| notahacker wrote:
| I strongly suspect many if not most Chinese people would
| choose to see the censored version, especially if the
| stated reason for the censorship was "we have removed
| some things which may be insulting to Chinese people".
|
| Most people don't like being censored themselves, but
| don't confuse that for a moment with believing that most
| people want everything uncensored. For all public
| discourse in America constantly talks about free speech
| absolutism and the horrors of censorship, US TV has
| "decency" regulations and there's absolutely no mass
| movement to ensure that TV companies are not penalised
| for 'wardrobe malfunctions' and expletives are broadcast
| without bleeps. Why would people from a much more
| conservative culture where public discourse attaches no
| value to free speech but stresses paternalism and
| patriotism instead be so keen on hearing alleged rudeness
| about their country?
| ndespres wrote:
| Some of these jokes which are censored for criticism of China
| are so tasteless that they ought to be censored in the American
| version as well, or better still, never written at all. A joke
| about whether the "chicken" at the local Chinese takeout
| restaurant is actually chicken? In the 21st century? That is
| supposed to be amusing?
| kogus wrote:
| I think it's important to distinguish between government
| censorship and corporate self-censorship. Almost nothing
| should be censored by the government. Almost anything can be
| censored by private parties (however cowardly such censorship
| may often be).
| ginger2016 wrote:
| Government censorship can look at lot like corporate
| censorship, remember Zuckerberg said Facebook limited the
| reach of the news story because FBI informed them
| something. I am sure this is probably not the first time
| American government "requested" a corporation to censor
| something without the public knowing.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I suspect some of it is just censoring for the sake of
| censoring.
|
| It is a common problem, if your job is to inspect something and
| you find nothing wrong, how do you show that you did your job?
|
| Here is an anecdote: in the game "Battle Chess", the graphists
| were quite happy with how their work turned out, but they knew
| it will be reviewed, and the reviewers will have to say
| something. So they added a small duck going around the queen
| piece, in a way that was easy to remove. As planned, reviewers
| said "everything is fine, but remove the duck", which they did,
| leaving the original design intact.
| [deleted]
| bee_rider wrote:
| Actually, I wonder if that would be a "good" way of making a
| comedy that can be shown everywhere. Just film like 40 minutes
| per episode for a 30 minute slot, but only include throwaway
| jokes to they can be removed as needed.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Comedy doesn't translate well, even among people of similar
| demographics. What makes one person fall out of their chair
| with laughter will make another roll their eyes. You can
| water jokes down and make them generic, but rarely will you
| elicit more than a chuckle from people once you've completely
| diluted a joke. What was the last "dad joke" you heard that
| made you laugh uncontrollably?
|
| I think it's pointless to try an appease everyone. People
| should make comedy for their audiences and those who don't
| find it funny are free to ignore it. Just like, I think
| people should write sci-fi or thrillers for their audiences,
| rather than for everyone.
| stirfish wrote:
| I read somewhere that if you're writing humor for kids, you
| have to strip out a lot of the context: they might not know
| what an Eiffel Tower is, but they will understand Big Thing.
| Maybe comedy that can be shown everywhere is comedy a child
| can understand?
| m463 wrote:
| I can't help but wonder what the first-pass of censors did to
| the big bang theory (I'm pretty sure internal review and the
| rating service that gave it tv-14 cut stuff out too)
| sltkr wrote:
| Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot
| of these jokes are, but I can definitely see why the censors
| took offense at some of them.
|
| For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be
| more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken")
| plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and
| cats, and the "passing off" remark implies that the Chinese
| restaurant owners are deceptive and would immorally and
| illegally serve their guests a different kind of meat than
| advertised. I can definitely see how that joke would be
| considered offensive.
|
| The author labels that joke as "harmless" but you don't have to
| be a Chinese censor to interpret it as reinforcing harmful
| stereotypes. I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college
| and notice how few laughs you get.
|
| Similarly, the racist remarks about Chinese people made by
| Sheldon's mom are somewhat offensive if taken at face value. I
| guess the joke is supposed to be at her expense instead ("old
| people are racists" is an American comedy cliche, if a somewhat
| tired one) but it's conceivable that either the censors didn't
| get that, or they feared that their audience didn't get that,
| so they decided to cut it out entirely.
|
| "They wouldn't get that" is probably also the right explanation
| for censoring the joke about Jews eating at Chinese restaurants
| during Christmas, which is a very American tradition. That
| doesn't imply the joke needs to go, but I can see how that
| would, at best, leave Chinese viewers scratching their heads.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| For the most part, jokes are only offensive if they strike a
| nerve.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-walmart-china/wal-mart-
| re...
|
| > Wal-Mart will reimburse customers who bought the tainted
| "Five Spice" donkey meat and is helping local food and
| industry agencies in eastern Shandong province investigate
| its Chinese supplier... The Shandong Food and Drug
| Administration earlier said the product contained fox meat.
| ryanobjc wrote:
| dogleash wrote:
| >Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a
| lot of these jokes are
|
| It's CBS. The channel for old people on a medium for old
| people.
|
| >I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and
| notice how few laughs you get.
|
| Yes, and? Everyone thinks they like 'irreverent' comedy until
| it violates the wrong proprieties. "On the way out of
| fashion" is a flavor of subversive comedy, often targeted at
| different audiences than "on the way into fashion" flavor of
| subversive comedy.
|
| The people old enough to watch CBS are from a generation
| where they and their friends can exchange jokes at the
| expense of eachother's lineal stereotypes without it being
| inherently toxic. I just let them have their laughs, it seems
| pretty harmless.
| the_optimist wrote:
| Agree, these are 'jokes' are pathetically trite, bland fare.
| However ironically, liberal college grads are mostly the ones
| writing the shows. Hard to wrap one's head around.
| jjcon wrote:
| > can definitely see why the censors took offense at some of
| them
|
| Take offense maybe... censor absolutely not
| stirfish wrote:
| > I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and
| notice how few laughs you get.
|
| Yeah, the show isn't that funny.
|
| >For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be
| more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken")
| plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and
| cats, and the "passing off" remark implies that the Chinese
| restaurant owners are deceptive and would immorally and
| illegally serve their guests a different kind of meat than
| advertised. I can definitely see how that joke would be
| considered offensive.
|
| I hadn't considered the cat/dog meat angle, thank you for the
| perspective. In that case, I'd probably cut it too. I was
| thinking more of chicken nuggets, where a dozen birds are
| liquified and poured into a mold.
|
| Like if you ordered the pork and was served a hotdog, the
| "passing off as" bit would still work, you know?
| archi42 wrote:
| Just today I saw part of a BBT rerun on German TV: The guys
| camp out in some lodge, together with the lodge's owner. That
| owner is also a brilliant(?) scientist, living alone in the
| lodge. I think he is from Germany, but that might differ
| depending on the localisation. He and his wife send each
| other cards once per year, for their respective birthday.
| Well, turns out most years, because this year he forgot it
| (Sheldon later realizes that in fact Amy is more important to
| him than science). Anyway, he asks them if they know the
| difference in taste between (wild) rabbit and squirrel, and
| since the guys say they don't, "well, then we'll have bunny
| today" and leaves the lodge with his rifle. The guys then
| leave while he is hunting, with Sheldon commenting "I know
| the difference, I'm from Texas".
|
| So, as a German, should I be offended because of the
| squirrel/rabbit thing? Should Texans be offended? What about
| the career over partner theme, is that insensible to Germans
| divorcing due to career-induced burnouts?
|
| No, it's just a joke. I don't believe anyone would think we
| ate squirrel, and I don't believe Texans do. (However, rabbit
| is in fact eaten around here. It's also a meat in France (who
| are famous for their cuisine) and... China. Says the
| Internet. But around here rabbit is more a delicacy, often
| for Easter or other special occasions; personally I think I
| haven't eaten rabbit meat in nearly a decade. Also, the
| rabbits-for-eating are large animals, not bunnys. Those are
| adored and loved as pets).
| jedberg wrote:
| > I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and
| notice how few laughs you get.
|
| Did you see the recent video where the white guy dressed up
| in a poncho, big hat, and fake mustache and carried around
| maracas? He asked a bunch of white kids on a college campus
| if they thought his outfit was offensive to Mexicans, and
| they all said yes.
|
| Then he went to the Mexican part of town and asked actual
| Mexicans, and they all said it was funny or that they liked
| that he was trying to honor their culture. Not one of them
| was offended.
|
| So perhaps it would be good to ask a Chinese person if this
| joke offends them.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Who posted that video, and was it unedited? If we're going
| on a single piece of anecdata, I think it's fair to
| question if the creator had any biases or was trustworthy.
|
| And not all racism / bias is equal. Maybe you are right
| that Chinese and Chinese-American people would not be
| offended by this, but it seems completely reasonable that
| they would be, and the onus on you would be to get data
| that they wouldn't. It really doesn't matter what liberal
| college students think at all, unless they happen to also
| be of Chinese or of Chinese descent (or they are southeast
| Asian, and tired of lazy racism that doesn't bother to
| distinguish such things).
|
| edit: it was in fact PragerU
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU) which is intended
| for entertainment. It should not be considered reliable or
| unedited.
| the_af wrote:
| > _edit: it was in fact PragerU
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU) which is intended
| for entertainment. It should not be considered reliable
| or unedited._
|
| Isn't PragerU a far right site know for promoting bizarre
| things? I'd would definitely call it "unreliable".
| jedberg wrote:
| > and the onus on you would be to get data that they
| wouldn't.
|
| FWIW I have a few data points -- this is something my
| Chinese wife has literally said inside a Chinese
| restaurant, and some of her other family members have
| said similar things about not trusting that the food
| being served is what they said it was.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| And I did not know if you were Chinese or otherwise of
| east or south-east Asian descent, either. A group is not
| obligated to be a monolith in what they feel is offensive
| or not. And sometimes can be empowering to steal a slur /
| stereotype, but it feels a lot differently if the same
| word or joke is made in other circumstances.
|
| I don't know the right answer, but I definitely think it
| would be understandable if someone didn't appreciate that
| joke. And worst of all, it's just in service of the
| cheapest, blandest kind of humor. The writers should be
| ashamed of such lazy work, regardless of bigger issues.
| "Would it work without a laugh track" clearly fails badly
| here, as it does pretty frequently in TBBT.
| dirtyid wrote:
| > not trusting that the food being served is what they
| said it was
|
| Chinese folks being weary of restaurants with swapping
| ingredients for lower tier is not comparable to assuming
| chicken being swapped for cat, which is a tired joke.
| Usually reserved for pricer seafood, hence pick your
| victim tanks. Many restaurants do similar type of
| substitute shenangians, like I'm pretty sure the hipster
| burger joing is not serving genuine kobe beef patty for
| $15, but they're also not serving ground chihuahua
| either. Like even in PRC you're worried about things like
| gutter oil at a hole in a wall joint versus slightly
| cheaper grade of sea cucumber at a fancy restaurant. Even
| during the pork crisis, no one was particularly concerned
| that restaurants were feeding them cat/dogs instead.
|
| E: relate back to your parent comment, there's somethigns
| like cultural appropriation that most (especially older
| gen) Chinese don't care about, i.e. they thumbs up for
| white girls wearing qipao.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 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 ways the virtue signaling is doing the thing they
| are accusing others of - using a culture (that isn't
| theirs) as a weapon for social status.
|
| [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-36804155
| permo-w wrote:
| I'd agree that that is the case a lot of the time,
| especially in the online popularity contests, but a big
| percentage - I'd say probably a majority - of the time it
| is simply sheep behaviour that has become ingrained
|
| I felt this pull at university, when I spent a brief time
| flirting with the art society. everyone there had these
| kinds of values, and it would have made fitting in
| significantly easier if I had vocally agreed with them.
| this would have been especially tempting if I was (more)
| lonely and desperate for company, as many people are
|
| as it was I mostly just kept quiet or carefully found
| points of agreement. I suspect if I was the type of
| person to give in to this zeitgeist, and not particularly
| question my beliefs, it could easily have developed into
| something real without any need for narcissistic
| tendencies
| philistine wrote:
| 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.
| nindalf wrote:
| It's extraordinary that people are taken in by such videos.
| Those videos are selectively edited to make the creators
| point.
|
| Tell me, when Jimmy Kimmels producers go out on Hollywood
| Boulevard and find that not even one person can point to a
| country other than America on map
| (https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o) - do you think that's real
| too? Or is that selectively edited for laughs?
| jedberg wrote:
| I know the video was edited, it's by PragerU. That's not
| the point though, it was just a story to point out that
| not all things about other cultures are offensive.
|
| And it's funny you ask about Kimmel, because I actually
| know the person who did those bits (she was the offscreen
| voice for the first few years and is actually the
| interviewer in this video). She said that while it was
| edited, they didn't have to edit it much, because about
| 80% of the people really were that dumb.
| Bakary wrote:
| There is a bias in that we see such videos, find them
| shareable, notice their existence but really there's
| absolutely no reason to use either the Kimmel or PragerU
| vid as anything other than light entertainment.
|
| That doesn't mean the underlying argument they propose
| can't be defended, just that the videos have no
| explanatory power whatsoever.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| No, but I constantly hear right wingers referencing it. It
| must be very popular in the echo chamber.
| jedberg wrote:
| Yes, it does support a right wing point of view, but that
| doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. It's just one video,
| but there are many other videos and essays about the same
| topic.
| wizofaus wrote:
| What "right wing point of view" exactly? That racism
| isn't a real problem? Are there mainstream right-wing
| organisations that actually promote that view?
| jedberg wrote:
| The right wing uses videos like that to show that,
| "liberals are the only ones offended by cultural
| appropriation". The topic is far too complex to be
| encapsulated in a TikTok video, but the video is just an
| example of how it's possible that representing another
| culture _could_ still be appreciated, and that not every
| instance of representing another culture is
| appropriation.
| dogleash wrote:
| No. The point of view that between being maximally
| uptight about race is different than acknowledging and
| working against racism.
| Banana699 wrote:
| This is called Common Sense. To the extent that it's
| right-wing-coded in (and, I believe, only in) USA is only
| a reflection of how wacko their pseudo-left has gone.
| wizofaus wrote:
| That's my point of view and I don't consider myself the
| least bit right wing!
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| I saw that clip - there may be a valid point somewhere in
| there at being too easily offended but it's a stupid stunt
| from a non-honest broker. At the outset, the video's
| author's intent is to make liberal college students look
| dumb or like snowflakes, so that's what that video sets out
| to do but; there's no telling how many people they to talk
| to get cut on either side of the argument.
| pvg wrote:
| As a measure of whether a stereotype is actually bad or has
| negative effects, this sort of thing is a lot staler than a
| BBT joke, though.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > The author labels that joke as "harmless" but you don't
| have to be a Chinese censor to interpret it as reinforcing
| harmful stereotypes.
|
| Is it actually "harmful" though? People are still going to
| Chinese restaurants as far as I know. The "harmful" adjective
| is being thrown around a lot, but it's never been very clear
| to me there is _actual_ harm. People will cite things such as
| "violence against Asian-Americans has been on the increase!",
| but that seems entirely disconnected from some jokes in some
| sitcom.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be
| more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken")
|
| That same joke is made about a lot of food chains, especially
| fast food, like McDonald's. Replace chicken with beef and you
| have half of all the jokes ever made about Taco Bell (with
| the other half being poo jokes).
| pessimizer wrote:
| Those are companies, not nationalities.
| throwaways85989 wrote:
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs
| and cats
|
| So... you support _government_ censorship of jokes that
| somebody, somewhere might be offended by?
| wizofaus wrote:
| Wouldn't that happen even in the US? A movie full of vile
| racist and sexist jokes bordering on abuse is not going to
| get a [G] rating, meaning the government is censoring it
| for some viewers.
|
| Edit: it seems it's actually relatively easy to find jokes
| that are genuinely offensive and degrading in PG rated
| films. Why that's considered less potentially harmful to
| kids than showing sex between consenting adults I honestly
| don't know.
| tacon wrote:
| You are confusing movie ratings, by the movie industry,
| with government censorship. Movie ratings are just labels
| anyway, and not censorship.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| MPAA ratings are decidedly not government censorship.
| [deleted]
| dogleash wrote:
| MPAA ratings are not government censorship, they're
| cartel censorship.
|
| The reason corporations follow the cartel's rules are
| financial agreements and the fear of PR backlash for not
| letting parents outsource parenting.
| wizofaus wrote:
| So there's literally no government involvement in what
| content can be shown in broadcast material in the US?
| Even for FTA TV? In Australia the ratings system is
| administered by the commonwealth government, so I
| incorrectly assumed the same was true in the US.
| anjbe wrote:
| Obscenity is one of the (very few) exceptions to the
| First Amendment. What exactly makes something "obscene"
| is somewhat unclear (see the Miller test), but in
| practice explicit pornography, for example, is not
| legally considered obscene, in part because the
| definition is somewhat dependent on community standards
| and porn is very, very popular.
|
| The FCC can and does regulate over-the-air broadcasts to
| a stricter standard, thanks to its exclusive authority
| over the inherently limited wireless spectrum. It
| restricts not just obscenity, but indecency (explicit
| sex) and profanity (bad language). However, this power
| does not extend to (e.g.) cable TV, which is not
| broadcast over the publicly owned airwaves.
|
| The US really does generally have stronger free speech
| protection than the rest of the developed world. There is
| no equivalent in the US to a work being "refused
| classification" as seen in Commonwealth countries. The
| First Amendment would prohibit it. Some retailers won't
| sell unrated or X-rated films or AO-rated games, but
| others can, because the ratings systems are formed by
| industry groups and are not compulsory.
|
| When the Christchurch shooting happened, the New Zealand
| government banned both the shooter's manifesto and the
| livestreamed video, making them illegal to possess or
| distribute. I doubt such a thing could happen in the US.
| (I remember my surprise that NZ actually has a government
| office named "Chief Censor.")
| dogleash wrote:
| We have law that restricts indecent/obscene content, and
| it applies exclusively to FTA TV and radio. But it's
| completely unrelated to the ratings system for tv and
| movies.
|
| Most channels not restricted by those rules (subscription
| cable & satellite) set in-house standards on content for
| commercial reasons. And of the broadcasters that are
| covered by the regulation, they are the old stodgy
| networks and never choose to get near the boundaries.
| wizofaus wrote:
| The interesting thing is that end result seems to be a
| proliferation of extreme views in the US vs other similar
| countries, which is arguably the opposite of what you
| might reasonably expect from the opportunity to allow
| freer discussion of ideas.
| anjbe wrote:
| Is that the case, though? The US has problems of
| religious and political extremism, but is Muslim violence
| worse in magnitude than in France with its restrictions
| on religious expression, or anti-semitism than in the
| European countries that ban Holocaust denial?
| wizofaus wrote:
| Good question. At best it would seem that such censorship
| doesn't seem to have all that significant impact on
| beliefs and behaviours.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| Age ratings are quite a different thing than making it
| unavailable to the entire public. I don't think you can
| just lob all censorship in the same basket like that:
| there's quite a bit of nuance here that makes all the
| difference.
| wizofaus wrote:
| I don't see any point trying to justify or argue for
| extreme Chinese-style censorship. But there are still
| useful debates to be had about censorship in Western
| liberal societies.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| But they're not the same things at all; I don't think
| age-ratings are "censorship".
| wizofaus wrote:
| In Australia they are:
| https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-
| ratings/wha...
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| The original poster only said they could "see why" the
| censors took offense, not that they supported it.
| camdenlock wrote:
| > I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and
| notice how few laughs you get.
|
| This is why, in a sane society, liberal arts students are not
| consulted for their wisdom.
| wrycoder wrote:
| I don't find BBT funny. The censored sex-related stuff is in
| there for its shock effect, anyway.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > such a bland, un-subversive show ... is so heavily censored
|
| American censorship is honestly no better, it's just that the
| show was written with the specifics of American censorship in
| mind.
| function_seven wrote:
| Bullshit.
|
| Sorry, this "we're the same" retort is exhausting. The United
| States government does not employ censors to remove portions
| of shows before allowing them to air (or stream, whatever).
| The closest thing I can think of is DoD not giving access to
| a movie unless it paints Navy pilots in a certain light.
| Okay, fine. Not nearly the same as what this site is showing
| us.
|
| Yes, we have cultural taboos, like any culture. Studios have
| more trouble presenting some viewpoints over others.
| Chappelle gets protested, that one episode of Community was
| memory-holed on Hulu (but not on Amazon!). We ban pornography
| on public airwaves (but not on streaming or cable or
| satellite, or Blueray).
|
| If you compare and contrast the pervasiveness of censorship
| between China and the United States, the difference is huge.
|
| When it comes to artistic freedom, the US is _way better_
| than China. Maybe you can say we can improve even more, sure.
| But that 's a long way off from our censorship being
| "honestly no better".
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > The United States government does not employ censors to
| remove portions of shows
|
| What? Yes it does - the FCC has been doing this for a half-
| century at least.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| Which shows and which portions specifically have been
| removed/censored/banned by the FCC?
| function_seven wrote:
| I noted that in my comment:
|
| > _We ban pornography on public airwaves (but not on
| streaming or cable or satellite, or Blueray)._
|
| And the FCC has a very narrow scope. I also happen to
| disagree with their prudishness (Janet Jackson, 2003). It
| does not back the argument that we're "honestly no
| better".
| some-human wrote:
| Say the word "Bullshit" and then show a erect penis on
| Wheel of Fortune and see how that 'we don't censor things'
| goes for you.
| function_seven wrote:
| I guarantee you that the footage would be a viral
| sensation online. King World productions would decline to
| air it, okay. But if it leaked, it would be viewed by
| millions.
|
| Are you saying that a production company not airing
| craziness is the same as being arrested for calling your
| leader a cartoon bear? Is that the equivalency I'm
| supposed to be drawing? (https://www.rfa.org/english/news
| /china/tweets-01232020164342...)
| some-human wrote:
| Not only would they "decline to air it" they are
| prohibited from airing it.
|
| > Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at
| all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are
| prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and
| 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children
| may be in the audience.
|
| > Obscene content does not have protection by the First
| Amendment. For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet
| a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It
| must appeal to an average person's prurient interest;
| depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently
| offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious
| literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
|
| via [https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-
| indecent-and-pr....]
|
| Christ in the Original Star Trek run CBS had a censor
| employed on set for an episode where a character wore a
| risky outfit to make sure no nipples popped out. That
| isn't different to this Chinese company making sure their
| shows meet the restrictions of the Chinese authority.
|
| Your weird puritan country will air a show where a
| character shoots someone with a gun in the street, in
| your copaganda shows, but god forbid one of them gets a
| tit out whilst they do it.
| function_seven wrote:
| My argument is against the statement that the US is
| "honestly no better"
|
| You're raising a point about RF broadcast of obscene
| content. That's a tiny slice of available media. What
| China is censoring is being done as completely as they
| can muster. What the FCC censors is narrowed down to
| airwave broadcasts.
|
| Surely you can see that there's a difference here, right?
|
| Tank Man is prohibited completely. Not just over a
| certain delivery method, during certain times of day.
| some-human wrote:
| Yes, I see that. My retort was to "The United States
| government does not employ censors to remove portions of
| shows before allowing them to air (or stream, whatever)."
| which it effectively does.
|
| The scale isn't black and white with China being terrible
| and USA being great here, it's a sliding scale of
| shitness, with one being a 4/10 and the other 9/10, but
| the 4/10 pretends to be a 0/10 and proports "free speech
| for all. Home of the Free world. The government can't
| tell you what you can say and do." and the other doesn't
| pretend it is.
| function_seven wrote:
| Then you're arguing with someone else. I've never claimed
| the US is "0/10" or any such silliness. I made sure to
| acknowledge what censorship does exist here. I referenced
| FCC authority in that first comment.
|
| "Honestly no better"
|
| That's what set me off, because it so obviously not true.
| It's better in the US. Not perfect. But definitely
| better.
| briantakita wrote:
| Not Bullshit. If the Government & Corporations care so much
| about others censoring, they should lead by example.
| Lectures by hypocrites will otherwise be ignored...even if
| the censorship that you may like is categorized as being
| justified by you. If you don't like China's censorship
| policies, then appeal to China's sensibilities as their
| censorship is categorized as justified by them. Otherwise,
| the Chinese government will simply point out that lectures
| from hypocrites have no bearing.
| sadgrip wrote:
| What censorship are you referring to? Streaming services
| as far as I know can show anything that isn't illegal. Is
| that not the case?
| briantakita3 wrote:
| ryanobjc wrote:
| Absolutely wrong, the founders knew it, you should know
| it, everyone knows it.
|
| There's a big difference between using the rule of law to
| shape what can and cannot be said or sold or published.
| Compared to different private publishers/agents/etc
| deciding what they wish to do. The marketplace solves the
| latter problem - and it has!
|
| People are getting caught up in the "chicken" joke, but
| if you read the read of the article you'll see that crime
| dramas had to be re-shot so the "side of justice" wins in
| the end.
|
| What kind of anodyne cultural bullshit is that? Only the
| good guys win - BY STATE LAW.
|
| So absolutely not, the US and China are not even remotely
| the same. To suggest so is so ridiculous offensive it
| opens one up to accusations that they are a Chinese sock
| puppet... and it's a totally reasonable opinion to hold!
| briantakita wrote:
| You can call me whatever you want. I'm saying practice
| what you preach otherwise you're going to be written off
| as a hypocrite & your criticisms will not have
| credibility. Consider that political censorship has been
| increasing & becoming a criminal & economic matter in the
| West. Julian Assange is an example of a journalist who is
| held in detention without being charged for political
| reasons.
|
| Do you honestly think that America & the West have
| integrity with the Constitution & the spirit of the
| Founders? If you do, boy do I have a bridge in Brooklyn
| to sell you.
| function_seven wrote:
| Let me make this simpler.
|
| The 100 most popular movies produced in China are
| completely fine to stream in the US. Not a single scene
| or phrase is removed by our government before allowing us
| to watch them. Same with music, TV, books, and art.
|
| The reverse is not even close. Can you give me a Western
| example that is analogous to Tank Man, or to Winnie the
| Pooh?
| briantakita wrote:
| I don't think Julian Assange among other whistleblowers
| who are punished for speaking out about the Western
| hegemony's actions care too much about the Big Bang
| Theory's episodes in China...same with most of who are
| censored by YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc for political
| reasons. Practice what you preach or what you preach has
| no credibility.
|
| The global south & many westerners are tired of the
| lectures coming from the NeoLiberal Democracies & it's
| easy for them to identify a long list of hypocrisy.
| function_seven wrote:
| I agree with you that Julian has been targeted for
| political reasons. I can type this on a US site with
| absolutely no fear of repercussions. I practice what I
| preach. I also think our treatment of Guantanamo Bay
| prisoners is unconscionable. I openly criticize my own
| government all the time. And not a single post or comment
| has ever been removed by that same government.
|
| By the way, here's the (uncensored) leaks from Julian:
| https://wikileaks.org/afg/
|
| Edward Snowden really exposed the NSA almost 10 years
| ago. Yet I can still access the PowerPoints and other
| materials he leaked. They're on _Wikipedia_! That 's
| like, the opposite of censored.
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM)
|
| Can you make a statement about Tank Man, or Xi's
| resemblance to Winnie the Pooh, or Peng Shuai and her
| accusations? Do it on WeChat. Let me know how that goes.
| briantakita3 wrote:
| pphysch wrote:
| Western/American cultural messaging is very deeply baked into
| the popular media. What is necessarily aligned with, and un-
| subversive to, Western values may not be so for other sets of
| values.
|
| In short, "bland", "un-subversive", "sensitive" are culturally
| relative terms.
| briantakita wrote:
| China has a policy against feminizing men...so it's possible
| that the government sees the show as being a bad influence. The
| Chinese government probably also wants Chinese, not western,
| women to be seen as sexy.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Reverse-engineering from the missing data to an underlying
| philosophy is a very clever use of the data.
|
| I wonder if there are any seasonal discontinuities? Those could
| indicate anything from a cultural shift in the censors to actual
| individual censors retiring and getting replaced, since so much
| of censorship is very subjective.
| [deleted]
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I wondered tho: was it really necessary in this case, since the
| underlying philosophy was already public knowledge?
| mikotodomo wrote:
| > Sex is the most frequently censored topic in this TV-14 show,
| meaning that it is appropriate for audiences aged 14 and older,
| with 139 scenes and 43.1 minutes removed.
|
| That's pretty messed up ngl.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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
| government blocking The Big Bang Theory purely on the grounds
| that it stinks.
| [deleted]
| concordDance wrote:
| > xenophobic
|
| It's interesting how politically charged words mutate over
| time.
| elldoubleyew wrote:
| The joke about the chicken is interesting to me.
|
| I see to your point, the joke leans to imply that Chinese
| people will lie about the ingredients served in their
| restaurants to save some money.
|
| This stereotype, however, is predominant amongst Chinese people
| in China. This joke would fit right in on any Chinese TV show,
| questioning the legitimacy of the meat at a cheap restaurant is
| a joke older than the country. This may be why the author calls
| it "harmless".
|
| It would be the equivalent of a Chinese sitcom where a
| character might suggest that visit a Texas Barbecue you might
| get shot by some revolver-wielding cowboy. I don't think many
| Americans would take offense.
|
| But as the author mentions, strict self censorship amongst
| broadcasters has effectively cut all scenes that mention
| "China" or "Chinese" just to be safe.
| ryanobjc wrote:
| So here's the thing, is that joke making fun of a Chinese
| restaurant, or is it making fun of racist americans who make
| comments like that?
|
| The reality is most Americans have someone like that in their
| family. Read the rest of the scene: Leonard is distinctly
| uncomfortable, tries to politely correct the wordage, the
| comment is lost and the originator moves on.
|
| In any case, are you saying that... words that offend you
| should be removed from media? You know, like... some kind of...
| woke person who is really sensitive to racism?
| the_optimist wrote:
| The joke is the latter. The woke college grads who write the
| shows think it's funny to have/lampoon racist characters.
| However, it is a staple of the fare that these characters
| must exist in the shows to add foils and character depth.
| ryanobjc wrote:
| Well the shows were written before wokeness was invented,
| so we're gonna need a new theory.
| the_optimist wrote:
| 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.
| domador wrote:
| This could imply that according to Sturgeon's law, you'd
| support censoring 90% of everything out there.
|
| (I don't know if your last, pro-censorship line was a joke, but
| if so, it was a lame one. But I'm against censoring or deleting
| it, though.)
| vorpalhex wrote:
| No work of fiction only has heroes and reasonable people.
| chclau wrote:
| For me is one of the loveliest series I have seen
| Kye wrote:
| Pop Culture Detective did a video on the show:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3-hOigoxHs
| tablespoon wrote:
| It's not exactly the same thing, but I've noticed similar kinds
| of edits in a couple of US children's books I've been able to
| compare. Some are easily explainable as political correctness or
| changing social mores, some might be explainable by the influence
| of helicopter parenting and increasing uptightness (e.g.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/opinion/halloween-kids-mo...),
| but others I can't make heads or tales of.
| [deleted]
| AndrewUnmuted wrote:
| deepdriver wrote:
| This type of censorship isn't unique to China. Numerous scenes
| and whole episodes of The Office were silently removed from
| streaming services. The episodes were renumbered so you wouldn't
| notice:
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/comedy-central-caves-cancel-culture...
|
| This article goes so far as to praise the censorship:
|
| https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/the-office-edited-censor...
|
| As usual, piracy (or the legal purchase and ripping of old DVDs)
| is now the only way to access this material, which was deemed
| suitable for public consumption as recently as a few years ago.
| jjcon wrote:
| > Numerous scenes and whole episodes of The Office were
| silently removed from streaming services
|
| Some private companies vs entire undemocratically elected
| governments conversation aside...
|
| What entire episode has been removed? I'm an office trivia buff
| and I'm not aware of this
| deepdriver wrote:
| "Diversity Day" has been removed in its entirety per first
| link.
|
| The distinction between private and government censorship is
| increasingly irrelevant to consumers, as in heavily
| consolidated markets the end effect is the same.
| jjcon wrote:
| Hmm still definitely in plenty of places though - chiefly
| NBCs streaming service
|
| https://www.peacocktv.com/watch-online/tv/the-
| office/4902514...
| awinder wrote:
| It was removed during some Comedy Central marathon lmao,
| it's still a part of the series, no episode was renumbered,
| and it's on Peacock which might as well be the canonical
| streaming source
| koonsolo wrote:
| The censored "Temple of Doom" scared the shit out of me.
| (WARNING: Spoilers!)
|
| When I was young my cousin had a VHS of "Temple of Doom" recorded
| from the BBC. We didn't know this was the censored version. So
| there was this scene where the priest puts his fingers on top of
| the chest of the victim, and then next scene they lowered the
| victim into the pit.
|
| We watched that movie a few times.
|
| Needless to say, it scared the shit out of me when I saw that
| movie again another time, but all of a sudden his had went
| straight into the chest! :o
| Julesman wrote:
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| While Chinese authorities have cracked down on dog-meat eating
| (especially around hosted international events), it's still
| consumed in some specific areas of the country.
|
| However, I don't see much diff between that and joking how
| incestuous Southerners might be or how they might eat
| squirrels.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Kudos for the design
| Dig1t wrote:
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "The political left is supposed to be very sex-positive"
|
| That is not my impression at all. See all the attempts to
| formalize consent in a way that does not really square with
| human sexuality. Consent _apps_? Wtf.
|
| Not to mention all the attempts to criminalize buying of sex,
| which is basically an ultraconservative position multiplied by
| -1.
| altruios wrote:
| It's not all the left, as much as it is the auth-left, lib-
| left are the free love hippies... they still exist... auth
| from every direction though drowns out the peace/freedom
| loving group from having a strong voice.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| > Not to mention all the attempts to criminalize buying of
| sex, which is basically an ultraconservative position
| multiplied by -1.
|
| What country/party has this position?
|
| As a naive European, that sounds like you might be talking
| about the left in the USA that is still far to the right of
| the European idea of "left".
|
| (Posting from Switzerland, where not only is sex work legal,
| it's regulated and taxed)
| panzagl wrote:
| It's part of the Puritan heritage that still affects US
| progressivism.
| koshergweilo wrote:
| > The obsession with sex seems like an example of horseshoe
| theory to me. The political left is supposed to be very sex-
| positive, but...
|
| I think China in general is a good example of why the 1D, and
| even 2D political spectrum is a bullshit abstraction.
|
| > authoritarian communist regimes were/are so far left that
| they kind of wrapped around and became conservative
|
| Placing autocratic "communist" states on the same axis as
| modern feminist professors makes about as much sense as placing
| someone like Peter Theil on the same axis as Hitler, in both
| cases one would have literally killed the other.
|
| One doesn't go from tolerating gay people to persecuting gay
| people the more "left" they are.
|
| > Stalin was very prudish about sex, so maybe they just don't
| fit into the same political spectrum
|
| Or maybe tolerance of gay people and "leftness" are actually
| completely separate variables that we only lump together
| because we're trying to project our modern ideologies onto
| historical figures
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wouldn't take China as necessarily embodying left wing
| economics (there's obviously a lot of capitalism going on over
| there and their society doesn't seem all that equal).
|
| There isn't any obvious correlation between left wing economics
| and social progressiveness other than the coincidental alliance
| that has occurred in the US. Authoritarian communist regimes
| were, obviously, authoritarian.
|
| And finally, "sex positivity" and dumb sitcom sexual jokes
| aren't really the same thing. They often have "man stupidly
| objectifies woman," "having same-gender parents is inherently
| funny," "man is an idiot because boobs," or if you go back to
| like the 80's, "man has poor understanding of consent" as a
| punchline. These aren't progressive ideas.
|
| So in conclusion, no at every level.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I'm not sure what aspects of the current Chinese
| government/communist party would be called "left". For
| instance, they don't seem especially interested in prioritizing
| any kind of equality of distribution of resources or power (I'm
| not sure if they even pretend they are, at least in a way that
| even any 'true believers' believe? I'd be curious for a read
| from someone in China though); or with providing any real level
| of 'social safety net'. I think they do both of these things
| actually less than the USA does, at present. I think any theory
| that tries to mostly put things into a dimension of "left" and
| "right" which calls the current Chinese regime or party "left"
| is probably not a great theory.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > what aspects of the current Chinese government/communist
| party would be called "left"
|
| That would be the end-state of what inevitably happens when
| you adopt leftist policies.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| That's an opinion and a boring argument, but I don't think
| it has much to do with "horseshoe theory". I think that
| read (that adopting "leftist policies" (like... social
| security? immigration liberalization? not sure what we're
| talking about) invariably(!) leads to a result that is not
| legible as 'left' at all but for its history) is probably
| incompatible with "horseshoe theory".
| izend wrote:
| We are heading to a world where every major country will be
| deploying a Great Firewall like censorship, especially as the
| cost of implementing and maintaining such a system drops.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The video platform part is neat. The censor/uncensored stuff so
| you can see. Wish I could have more controls but I like the
| visualization.
| [deleted]
| sudhirj wrote:
| 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 US address).
|
| Also trivia for those who are wondering how cuts are made, at
| least for cinema content: all video and audio assets are usually
| sent to theatres in full, but there's an XML file called the CPL
| (composition playlist) that specifies which file is played from
| which to which frame / timestamp in what sequence. Pure cuts or
| audio censorship can be handled by just adding an entry to skip
| the relevant frames or timestamp, or by specifying a censor beep
| as the audio track for a particular time range.
|
| https://cinepedia.com/packaging/composition/
| ginger2016 wrote:
| Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli,
| I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this
| show to be aired there.
| clouddrover wrote:
| What in particular is racist about it?
| ginger2016 wrote:
| If you have watched the show and failed see why it is
| racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education.
|
| It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence
| with women. Raj can't speak with women without the use of
| alcohol, the show constantly mocks his accent, worshipping
| of cows etc.
| jacekm wrote:
| Is it also affirming a stereotype that Indians are
| incredibly rich? Because that's how Raj is portrayed and
| the show mocks his wealth on more than one occasion.
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _If you have watched the show and failed see why it is
| racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education._
|
| Weak.
|
| > _It is affirming the stereotype Indian males_
|
| Is your claim that there are no Indian males who lack
| confidence with women? Or that there are no nerdy, geeky
| men who lack confidence with women?
|
| What's an example of the show mocking his accent? You do
| understand that's his normal speaking voice, I hope.
| Kunal Nayyar (the actor) grew up in India.
| ginger2016 wrote:
| Where Kunal Nayar grew is insignificant. Most of the
| soldiers who fought for British India were Indians
| themselves but that doesn't mean the occupation of India
| was right. In the case of Indian soldiers it was in their
| personal monetary interest to fight for the British. You
| are trying to make a similar argument, the role advances
| Kunal Nayar's career and I am sure he is in it because it
| helps him, doesn't mean the show gets a pass.
|
| I am not sure whether you are Indian or not, but if you
| fail to see why many Indians consider this portrayal
| problematic then we really need more anti-racism training
| in this country.
|
| Yes, I am sure there are Indian men who lack confidence
| with women, but given India is 1.5 billion strong, I am
| sure men who are confident outnumber Raj Kuthrapalli
| types.
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _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
| considering the very real possibility that it's not
| there.
|
| > _Yes, I am sure there are Indian men who lack
| confidence with women_
|
| Well, there's some small progress.
|
| The only ignorance and bigotry that's been exposed here
| would appear to be your own. Work on that.
| astrange wrote:
| 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
| thegrimmest wrote:
| Since when are cultural stereotypes "racist"? Since when
| is "Indian" a "race"?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _lack confidence with women_
|
| Aren't all the male characters in the show this way?
|
| Is the show doing _" Character who is Indian male lacks
| confidence with women"_ ?
|
| Or is it doing _" Character lacks confidence with women
| because he's an Indian male"_?
|
| There's a world of difference.
| ginger2016 wrote:
| Asian men historically have been desexualized. The show
| is relying on that stereotype.
|
| https://youtu.be/2k82hIqd1Os
| koheripbal wrote:
| It's a bit like Jewish, Irish, Japanese, Korean, or Italian
| stereotypes in movies/tv - few real members of those groups
| get offended because we're not currently disadvantaged.
| mr_toad wrote:
| The whole show is a giant stereotype.
| fortran77 wrote:
| I didn't care for the Jewish stereotypes in the "Big Bang
| Theory" and I disagree that I'm not disadvantaged.
| wrs wrote:
| 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/
| lapetitejort wrote:
| I watched many movies through TV Guardian [0] (the old
| composite cable variant). It connected inline to a VHS/DVD
| player and read closed captioned for any swear words. It
| would then mute the sound and show the censored CC. Of course
| it simply looked for words in a database and couldn't mute
| innuendos or blank out non-heteronormative relations.
|
| [0]: https://www.tvguardian.com/
| coryfklein wrote:
| 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 owner of this copy sitting in
| the warehouse, we'll stream it to you right now instead of
| going to the bother of mailing it out" (This part legally
| qualified as a "performance", which was their big mistake.)
|
| 4. When user is done watching the film, VidAngel
| automatically _buys back_ the Blu-ray - still sitting in
| their warehouse - for $19.
|
| So users could essentially stream any film they want (with
| optional self-selected censorship) for only $1 per viewing.
| Of course they get a flood of users since they're the
| cheapest shop in town, and of course since what they were
| doing was illegal they got taken to court and had to shut
| down 90% of their business.
|
| And then, they wrote an endless tream of publicity saying,
| "Big media doesn't want to give you the right to skip nudity
| and violence in your own home! Think of the children! They
| want to force their values on you!" Yeah, I don't think the
| film-makers _loved_ the censorship platform, but it was the
| _$1 performances_ that really got them riled up.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| 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 on a computer" is seen as a farce, not a fundamental
| difference from the [common thing].
|
| Anyway, I guess the mormons could get around this and
| achieve their desired effect by instead selling DVD players
| with a subscription to a service that distributes EDL
| files; instructions to the DVD player about which parts of
| movies should be skipped.
| isk517 wrote:
| Even during the video rental days you weren't allowed to
| just go out and purchase a bunch of videos at Walmart and
| start renting them out, you need to have purchased the
| rights to rent out the video.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Why would you say this? It is the opposite of the truth;
| the first-sale doctrine prevents the copyright owner from
| interfering with you while you rent out your cassettes.
|
| You need to purchase rights to _display_ the video _in
| public_. No one can stop you from renting out the _tape_.
| You already possess the right to rent out your own
| property.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, this is not true. The first-sale
| doctrine allowed the rental of VHS and video games bought
| normally at retail stores. The movie and video game
| industry went ballistic over this, a Nintendo executive
| called it "commercial rape". The movie industry took it
| to court and lost, and tried lobbying congress to no
| avail.
|
| IIRC, they then hatched a scheme where the retail
| availability of new movies on VHS would be restricted at
| least for a time, forcing video rental shops to pay more
| for copies of popular new movies.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| 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 rent the DVD itself.
| pavon wrote:
| Yes, you absolutely could do that legally - it is part of
| the "right of first sale", however you would have to wait
| until the videos were available for sale at Walmart. If a
| video rental store wanted to have access to videos
| _before_ they were available for home purchase (and most
| of them did) then they had to make deals with the rights
| holders and follow the contracts that went along with
| them.
| inopinatus wrote:
| The law is not a programming language. Believing so is a
| common misconception amongst engineers, but assuming as
| much is likely to lead to disappointment, frustration,
| anger, bickering, conflict, and vexatiously long and mostly
| unenforceable contracts.
|
| In particular, you can't just write up your own legal
| fictions and expect them to be honored. It would seem the
| developers in the story above learned this lesson the hard
| way.
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with
| their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server.
| Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately
| lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
| joezydeco wrote:
| Part of me still thinks Aereo wasn't honest with their
| technology. They showed off massive boards full of
| miniature UHF antennae, but a tuner/encoder is more than
| that. They never showed that part.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| 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
| Aereo's overwhelming likeness to the cable companies
| targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological
| difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies
| does not make a critical difference here."
| coryfklein wrote:
| It was exactly like Aereo. Their Supreme Court battle set
| the precedent that made the VidAngel battle a no-contest.
| Which makes me wonder how VidAngel ever thought they
| could get away with that business model.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is
| it really a bad thing if different countries have different
| understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world
| had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.
| S201 wrote:
| Because the people of China didn't choose this: their
| oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.
| [deleted]
| dirtyid wrote:
| >people of China didn't choose this
|
| Of course they did. PRC is country that skews old and
| conservative. Half the reason behind media crack down are
| cantankerous parents and grand parents telling governments
| they don't want loose western morals spoiling impressionable
| minds. Outside of western reporting, PRC libtards are
| relatively extinct compared to vast amount numbers of papa /
| grandpa wang who don't want to accidentally watch tits n ass
| or have uncomfortable imported culture war talks with their
| live-in kids. The only aggregious censorship that lowkey half
| of the population wants to get rid of is pornography but
| that's an Asian thing (also guess which half). There are many
| of policies easily explained by CCP having to appease the
| people where feasible because their legitimacy depends on it,
| unlike "democratic" systems where competing parties bunts the
| responsiblity to the next guy. Or that fractous multi-
| cultural societies make cultural wars different political
| party has idpol positions staked very difficult to win. In
| China, CCP gets pulse on mass culture and enforces it. Yes
| they can also manufacture identity for political ends but for
| something like imported mass media, much
| simpler/easier/pragmatic to embrace opinion of a billion
| conservative prudes.
| darawk wrote:
| This is right. If people vote for censorship in a democracy,
| that's a perfectly fine form of governmental heterogeneity.
| What's happening in China is not that.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I guess it's hard to see this when you are steeped in it,
| but a lot of the censorship in democracies isn't exactly
| democratic.
|
| Two American credit card companies have an insane amount of
| say on the shape of the content on the internet. Beyond
| that, small special interest groups have time and time
| again successfully lobbyied for censorship that is far
| beyond what the majority thinks is reasonable.
| leadingthenet wrote:
| Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz.
| welshwelsh wrote:
| I completely disagree.
|
| An individual's rights should have nothing to do with the
| people who happen to surround them and what they happen to
| think.
|
| If different countries allow different things, that would
| mean that what a person is allowed to do would depend on
| where they happen to live, which is usually close to where
| they happened to be born. That doesn't make any sense to
| me- the lottery of birth should have no impact on one's
| rights.
| concordDance wrote:
| A reason to allow different people groups to do different
| things could be uncertainty about what is harmful.
| Letting the various restrictions and allowances play out
| can give a better understanding of the consequences of
| these.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Despite the ideology that it _shouldn't_ matter, the
| lottery of birth is probably the single largest factor on
| someone's life trajectory today - changing that is
| incredibly difficult and would likely require the
| dissolution of many countries
| [deleted]
| cutemonster wrote:
| 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
| politician wrote:
| 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 opinion?
|
| China has no replacement generation, and they are facing
| internal turmoil within the next decade on a scale that
| has no historical precedent.
| paxys wrote:
| The Communist Party is the reason China is in this mess
| in the first place, and further control and oppression by
| them isn't going to magically fix it.
| politician wrote:
| That's a fair observation. I'm curious though, do you
| have any ideas to improve the situation? What would you
| do if you were responsible for 1.5B people and were
| facing a situation where the labor force participation
| drops by half over the next ten years and continues to
| drop every year since? Will you be able to arrange for
| the population to be able to be fed, clothed, housed, and
| given medical care?
|
| It's not possible to "magically" create several hundred
| million young people, communism or no, to "fix it". So
| what do you do?
| notsapiensatall wrote:
| Well for starters, you don't limit each family to a
| single child.
| politician wrote:
| Too late for that, they already raised the limit to 3,
| but it won't help in time for the demographic collapse.
| azekai wrote:
| The CCP isn't 'responsible' for the people under its
| boot. It is their lack of responsibility for the people
| of China that has led to this problem. You act like the
| socio-demographic situation is not the direct outcome of
| the policies pursued by the CPP regime.
|
| "Will you be able to arrange for the population to be
| able to be fed, clothed, housed, and given medical care?"
|
| The government of China does not do any of these things.
| China, despite their lip-service to historical Communist
| revolution, has some the worst social programs in the
| world.
| politician wrote:
| So, is your answer to let them starve? I'm trying to
| understand if you are answering my question or attempting
| to dodge by discussing something else.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| I guess I'd try to find a comfortable place to live in
| exile, start pocketing cash, and figure out how to get
| there before the doomed ship sinks and angry mobs try to
| kill me.
| glouwbug wrote:
| Their comment feels like astro-turfing. I see it on
| reddit pretty often when anything CCP roles around
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Because the people of China didn't choose this: their
| oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.
|
| Though to be fair, the political ideas that say that is a
| problem are pretty Western and (relatively) recent.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| At some point, one has to make a decision on the values the
| have, and which ones they consider universally valuable.
| [deleted]
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Keep in mind that this is government censorship; as opposed to
| private services performing the censorship to meet the desires
| of their users.
|
| I really don't have a problem with services offering edited,
| family-friendly versions of media as long as its disclosed and
| there's a way to see the original.
| kiawe_fire wrote:
| And if a population doesn't like it and/or wants access to
| the original, then the corrective action is less destructive,
| more equally available, and more quickly realized.
|
| I.e. "stop subscribing to the censored service and back any
| company with the means and intent to stream the originals and
| everyone wins" as opposed to "vote and/or overthrow the
| dictatorship or die trying and possibly nobody wins".
| joe_the_user wrote:
| It's worth noting that American censorship in, say, 1960, was at
| close to the same level.
|
| See:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_...
| coryfklein wrote:
| Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's
| censorship?
|
| I personally tire of this pattern:
|
| 1. Article submitted to an international forum about X country
| doing Y bad thing
|
| 2. "Well the USA is just as bad, they also did/doing/will do Y
| bad thing"
|
| Well yes, that is true, but people are voting up the submission
| because they found that X-doing-Y-today was interesting and
| don't care to rehash the history of the US every single time.
| YES the US has plenty of blemishes in its history. Yes it has
| censored, warred, raped, extorted, and imprisoned. Yes the US
| persists in directly doing some of those today, and through
| malice or ineptitude it fails to prevent others.
|
| But the regularity with which this pattern repeats feels so
| much like state sponsored astroturfing I'm just tired of it.
| the_af wrote:
| > _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 this pattern repeats feels
| so much like state sponsored astroturfing I 'm just tired of
| it._
|
| I think this is unfair. I also don't think you truly think
| people asking about US behavior here are Chinese agents.
| That's just silly. China hasn't infiltrated HN.
| pnemonic wrote:
| Is it just as worth noting then that China is more than 60
| years behind the US in terms of social progress?
| stavros wrote:
| Or ahead, who knows?
| jl6 wrote:
| I'd probably agree with you - but only just. 60 years ago was
| pre-Civil Rights Act.
| planb wrote:
| "Behind" implies that they're following and moving in the
| same direction. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case.
| vkou wrote:
| No, behind implies that they are currently in the opposite
| direction of the _current_ direction of western cultural
| movement. If the direction of our movement changes, they
| will, without lifting a finger, become _ahead_ of us.
|
| Social progress is inherently subjective (because progress
| in one value system is actually a regression in a different
| value system), and the observer always grounds their claim
| of 'behind' or 'ahead' in their culture's viewpoint.
| pessimizer wrote:
| The incarceration rate of the US in 1960 was about
| 225/100K, and in China it's currently around 120/100K, so
| China is doing a little better than we were 60 years ago.
|
| Of course our incarceration rate now has nearly tripled to
| _640_ /100K, so thank God they're not following us.
| Bakary wrote:
| Social progress is somewhat of a loaded term, but for
| instance abortion has been legal for longer and is still more
| widely available in China than in the US. The controversy
| surrounding abortion is in itself different, since instead of
| Christian concerns you have sex-selective abortion and
| population management that determine policy in this era.
|
| Homosexuality actually became less tolerated in the 19th and
| 20th century through Western influence. Now the West has done
| an about face in the span of one or two generations and China
| is comparatively less tolerant.
|
| All this to say that it's difficult to quantify since
|
| - assigning a teleological direction to social mores is
| perilous at best
|
| - comparing entire societies means you overlook specific
| cases that often aren't even evaluated along the same axis
|
| - Societies ebb and flow at unpredictable rates and with
| meandering paths and influence each other in often bizarre
| ways
| pjc50 wrote:
| When I saw the comment about "perfectly aligned with China's
| "main melody" perspective that justice always wins.", I was
| immediately reminded of the Hays code.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code
|
| (reading that again I discovered
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Film_Corp._v._Industria...
| ; the idea that movies were not counted as free speech for
| several decades in the US may come as a surprise to other HN
| readers)
| jibe wrote:
| It's helpful to look at that case in the context of the time,
| which was pre-New Deal, more federalist, and the Bill of
| Rights applied narrowly to the Congress. It was about a state
| (Ohio) having a censorship board, not federal censorship.
|
| The argument wasn't even made that it was a violation of the
| first amendment (which would have only applied to laws by
| Congress, not states). The argument was more about things
| like whether it was a violation of interstate commerce to
| have to have different versions of a movie for different
| states. They did argue that it violated the Ohio state
| constitutional right to free speech.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Growing up in the 70-80s, American TV/movies seem pretty
| censored today. Adult and under-18 T&A, light sexual content
| were the norm. Of course, the children are safe now and I guess
| it must be an accurate reflection of that age group if inceldom
| is the new norm.
|
| Oprah used to cover sex topics all the time.
| curun1r wrote:
| 1960s? Try the 1990s. The Blockbuster version of Bad Lieutenant
| had almost 30 min removed. Blockbuster was silently editing
| many of their VHS rentals before DVD took over.
|
| Yes, not government censorship, but it's almost worse when a
| private, unaccountable, entity is imposing its own moral
| values, especially when they reach the size that Blockbuster
| did during its heyday.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Blockbuster was given a death sentence by the market. Seems
| like justice done?
| jibe wrote:
| _Blockbuster was silently editing many of their VHS rentals
| before DVD took over._
|
| That's not exactly right. Blockbuster simply had a policy not
| to carry X-rated films that became a no NC-17 rated films
| when the rating changed.
|
| The video distributor of Bad Lieutenant created an R rated
| version of the film. The end result is still a
| wrecked/censored version of the movie, but it wasn't
| Blockbuster doing the silent editing. It is the choice of the
| film maker/studio/distributor to get the extra money from
| Blockbuster.
| [deleted]
| briantakita wrote:
| Companies & Governments in the US & West censor for political
| reasons. Why is this any different?
| camdenlock wrote:
| Citation needed. Please show an example of a foreign piece of
| content which has been chopped to bits by the US government
| before being allowed to be distributed here.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Broadcast anime on daytime television. While companies like
| 4Kids that did the actual censoring (like digitally editing
| cells) and replacing lines ( "localization" as they would
| call it), it is the FCC that has power over broadcast
| licensing and provides a disincentive for showing work that
| soccer moms found distasteful, even if otherwise covered
| under the First Amendment.
| ginger2016 wrote:
| Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire" won't be shown on network
| television in US.
| awinder wrote:
| Network television is some fine goalpost-moving, but as far
| as general media access goes you can find it on 3 US
| streaming services, and the reason no broadcast network is
| picking it up for redistribution has no basis in government
| censorship.
| Bakary wrote:
| What sort of TV shows are censored in the West?
| aaaddaaaaa1112 wrote:
| carapace wrote:
| There's an episode of South Park that featured the Prophet
| Mohamed (Super Best Friends) that was uncontroversial when it
| aired, but now you can't get it anywhere. They did a very
| good bit about it in "Cartoon Wars".
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_I (They
| deserve like a Pulitzer Prize or something for CW, it's
| genius.)
|
| It's not illegal to depict the Prophet, it's religious
| courtesy. (Also, it might interfere with profit (no pun
| intended.))
| ur-whale wrote:
| > What sort of TV shows are censored in the West?
|
| When was the last time you saw a pair of boobs on an US
| sitcom?
| 867-5309 wrote:
| boob ^1 /bu:b/
|
| INFORMAL
|
| noun
|
| 1. BRITISH an embarrassing mistake. "the boob was spotted
| by a security expert at the show"
|
| 2. NORTH AMERICAN a foolish or stupid person. "why was that
| boob given a key investigation?"
|
| plenty of pairs of both on American sitcoms!
| Bakary wrote:
| Game of Thrones? I'm not really a TV guy.
|
| I was specifically intrigued by what the GP saw as
| political censorship, but I see what you mean.
| Havoc wrote:
| Great site/article
| wizofaus wrote:
| Is aversion to discussion of sex a part of traditional Chinese
| culture? Seems odd given I'm not aware of any puritanical
| religions taking hold there.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Not really, but then again traditional Chinese culture isn't
| really that alive in China either. Communism in the Eastern
| bloc imported plenty of Western attitudes, including puritanism
| albeit under a secular/atheist branding. Also Christianity
| itself directly has a fairly significant history in the
| country. The Taiping rebellion was started by a Christian cult
| after all, and the Protestant House Church movement nowadays
| still counts tens of millions of members.
| alldayeveryday wrote:
| Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an
| aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion
| to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a
| population?
| wizofaus wrote:
| 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).
| tjs8rj wrote:
| Is there any culture in the world without significant
| taboos or social rules around sex?
|
| I can totally see why that'd be the default, simply because
| sex is such a charged act in any culture. Purely
| biologically: it's a very vulnerable act and has tons of
| "political/social implications" in a social species. Who
| you have sex with and be that vulnerable with signals your
| "allegiance" in a sense.
|
| Even chimps have taboos and social rules around sex for
| this reason. Who you have sex (or don't have sex) with
| decides who's in charge, who you support, what your clique
| is, and so on. A chimp caught having sex with the wrong
| chimp might be attacked.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Chimps, as far as I'm aware, don't talk about sex. I
| suppose my naive view is that the more society is
| prepared to talk about their behaviours, the less likely
| it is we'll indulge in the worse aspects of such
| behaviour. Hence taboos over discussing particular
| subjects have become ingrained despite being most likely
| counterproductive, at least for society at large, even if
| they serve the interests of some.
| nineplay wrote:
| Talking about sex is taboo because having sex is taboo.
| Having sex is taboo because if women have sex with more
| than one man, none of men can be sure whose child she is
| carrying.
|
| Men, in general, really like having their genes carried on.
| Men, in general, really hate wondering if a child is theirs
| or not.
| wizofaus wrote:
| That women having sex with multiple men is taboo has a
| rationale behind it, sure (even if it's not a very good
| one). But _not_ talking about sex would surely make the
| issue of uncertain fatherhood even worse...
| the_af wrote:
| > _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 taboo.
|
| Your argument also seems to be about _unprotected_ sex,
| the kind which can lead to kids. So is _protected_ sex
| not taboo, then?
| thegrimmest wrote:
| 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. Humans
| are simply not that different.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| 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 of the
| first decade was not above commissioning and printing a
| literal porn ABC if it got the job done.)
|
| I mean, they are totalitarian governments, they are defined
| by asserting control over the _totality_ of people's lives.
| But the fixation on sex, in particular, seems to go beyond
| that, and yet it's fairly universal among them.
|
| (If you have read Orwell and Zamjatin [which, let's be
| honest, are nearly the same book] but not _Moscow 2042_ , I
| highly recommend picking that up as well--the bizarre
| sexual Zeitgeist of the ripe Soviet state is much more
| vivid there than in the "serious" dystopian works. Though I
| don't really know if it's readable without at least an
| extensive set of footnotes, and given that it's supposed to
| be bitterly funny that might be missing the point.)
| alldayeveryday wrote:
| > Because why else would such an aversion arise?
|
| > I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human
| cultures.
|
| But, you seem to think a lack of aversion to talking about
| sex to be a default? To your question, I've known many
| people whom are not practicing any religion and yet have an
| aversion to sexual discussion, within a population that has
| a lack thereof. There are many such topics that some feel
| are not keeping with decorum to be discussed openly and
| widely - and without religion being involved. Let's say in
| China there is a general aversion to sexual discussion.
| What will be your explanation given lack of puritanical
| religion?
|
| > But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to
| arise spontaneously among a population
|
| I don't see spontaneity to be relevant here.
| wizofaus wrote:
| > Let's say in China there is a general aversion to
| sexual discussion. What will be your explanation given
| lack of puritanical religion?
|
| I genuinely don't know, that's why I asked. Presumably
| it's served some sort of purpose at some point. Or maybe,
| as another poster suggested, it was an trait borrowed
| from other cultures where puritanical religion did have
| an influence.
| wizofaus wrote:
| If I did have to put forward a hypothesis it's that men
| in power are insecure about their sexual abilities and
| have been worried about discussion of their exploits
| under the covers undercutting their status! Seems just as
| plausible as alternative suggestions put forth.
| moonchrome wrote:
| >Because why else would such an aversion arise?
|
| Because it promotes social stability ? As much as I dislike
| defending religion - those values produced the most stable
| societies through history
| wizofaus wrote:
| Why would not even talking about sex promote social
| stability? Arguably the most stable societies are those
| that existed for 10s of 1000s of years before the
| agricultural revolution etc. Did they generally have
| taboos around discussion of sex?
| moonchrome wrote:
| >Arguably the most stable societies are those that
| existed for 10s of 1000s of years before the agricultural
| revolution etc.
|
| Societies of n>100s. By tabooing sex you reduce
| promiscuous behaviour - which stabilises society. I don't
| really see how this would be controversial. Modern social
| values have unambiguously shown that they lead to a
| population decline. Huge difference being that technology
| makes us less reliant on population count for stability
| (hopefully).
| wizofaus wrote:
| Is there evidence at all that tabooing discussion of sex
| reduces promiscuity? I'd expect the exact opposite is
| just as likely.
| discreteevent wrote:
| I wouldn't think it surprising if they had at least
| customs around sex (whatever about taboos). Without
| contraception sex can cause a lot of trouble. People,
| even animals, will kill for mating rights.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Exactly - which you'd think would it make it all the more
| important to talk about it!
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| I'm not really sure we have a large enough corpus of
| (known) societies, but even ignoring that, were any pre-
| Middle Ages or non-Western European societies nearly as
| tight-lipped about sex? And just how tight-lipped
| actually was medieval Europe, when even Sleeping Beauty
| was awoken by being fucked? Finally, to which degree is
| stability of the social order desirable? Medieval Europe,
| _sakoku_ Japan and _zastoj_ USSR were all (meta)stable to
| some degree, but they were also hellholes of varying
| depth.
|
| I don't actually think the answers to these questions
| disprove your statement, because I have a painful lack of
| knowledge as to what those answers actually are. But I do
| feel that those answers need to be given before an
| argument such as yours can make sense.
|
| (Granted, a trait that promotes societal stability can
| become common even if stability isn't actually good, so
| the last question is not as important as the others. A
| dystopian equilibrium is still an equilibrium.)
| thegrimmest wrote:
| > _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 are
| indifferent to who's children they raise aren't very well
| selected for. Risk aversion in, and preference for
| protection of, child-bearing females by the group is a
| third - harm to these females disproportionately affects
| the ability of the group to reproduce and pass its genes.
| There are many, many others, and we have many of them in
| common with our animal relatives.
| yorwba wrote:
| If it's not the default state, it must have arisen
| spontaneously among the founders of puritanical religions.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Not necessarily, it likely happened incrementally. And it
| can still be rare for it to arise, it's just that once it
| did, something happened to make it stick.
| yorwba wrote:
| I don't think "spontaneously" and "incrementally" are
| mutually exclusive, but anyways, you can apply your "it
| happened incrementally and then something happened to
| make it stick" theory to China as well.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Non-heterosexual images (and masturbation) are anathema to
| China's leadership because China is facing a population
| decline, due to very low fertility.[1] [2]
|
| Internally produced TV in China has been censored for
| portraying "effeminate men".[3] The CCP has also, er,
| "encouraged", women to spend less time on social media and
| shopping. Internally the CCP says members must have three
| children.[4]
|
| 1. Here is military age population:
| https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/15-49...
|
| 2. Here is fertility rate. The green line is "replacement",
| i.e. enough for a stable population:
| https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/TOT/...
|
| 3. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-
| effemina...
|
| 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-child_policy
| fluoridation wrote:
| I love the implicit assumption that someone is only a
| sufficiently convincing argument away from going gay.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Do you think the rate of people identifying as gay has
| increased or decreased along with the general public's
| acceptance of it?
| wizofaus wrote:
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Non-heterosexual images (and masturbation) are anathema to
| China's leadership because China is facing a population
| decline, due to very low fertility.[1] [2]...
|
| > 1. Here is military age population: https://population.un.o
| rg/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/15-49...
|
| I've read that's one factor that makes the 2020s particularly
| dangerous: it's peak Chinese demographics _and_ a period of
| Western military weakness (b /c there's a pent up need for
| long term investment/replenishment, because the War on Terror
| shifted budgets towards short-term operations). There's a
| now-or-never factor if China wants to take Taiwan by force.
| truncate wrote:
| Wasn't sex talk tabooed in most cultures across the world,
| until X decades ago? Doesn't seem surprising to me, because
| even if the people are not necessarily religious now, certain
| beliefs and values would hold just because they were there
| decades ago, and it takes a while to fade away.
| mathlover2 wrote:
| [deleted]
| still_grokking wrote:
| What's the moral here?
|
| There is also a lot of censoring in the "western" world.
|
| It's also mostly justified by the exact same "reasons" like the
| ones mentioned in that blog post. Especial the "but the children"
| "argument" is used the whole time. And if that gets boring than
| it's "terrorism". Than again "the children".
|
| Also there are a lot of things one can't publicity say for
| _political_ reasons.
|
| In Germany for example most people know: If you want to watch
| some more "controversial" movies, or play uncensored games you
| need to get them on the gray or black market. The German versions
| are very often heavily censored, or there is just no German
| version at all because the content is outright verboten.
|
| Also communication online gets censored. It's impossible by now
| to say some (still) completely "legal" but "not politically
| correct" things online especially around mainstream media.
|
| The censorship in the EU gets also stronger every year. Now they
| banned "dangerous" foreign media... Actually without any
| grounding in established law. But who needs laws? It will take as
| always many many years until some judge will have the last saying
| and declare the things the government did as illegal. But than
| the game will just start again, also as always: Making illegal
| "laws" takes weeks. Getting rid of them takes decades. Then they
| change the wording, and you need to sue through all instance form
| the beginning. Ad nauseam.
| tgv wrote:
| You're really not making a strong argument by invoking the
| German example. The things that they forbid are mainly
| glorification of a most shameful regime. Holocaust denial comes
| to mind. Good riddance, I say.
| still_grokking wrote:
| Given the down votes I guess I've got misunderstood.
|
| I didn't made any argument up to now. I've asked for the
| moral of that blog post in the light of the fact that there
| is also quite some censorship elsewhere in the world.
|
| Sure, Chinese censorship is bad (and the examples given are
| partly laughable in my opinion). _But_ censorship is bad in
| general. This applies _the same_ to for example the
| censorship we have in the EU. (And no, it 's not "only some
| Nazi things").
|
| Also it's a notable fact that the _" justifications"_ given
| for our censorship are the exact same as the reasons given
| in, say, China (or likely elsewhere).
|
| The concrete censored content may differ, but behind that is
| the exact same line of reasoning: That there is
| "inappropriate" content the people need to be shielded from.
|
| That motivation is the part that is questionable at least.
| (Now I've made an argument).
|
| Actually this reveals a lot in which way governments think
| about the population, no matter the country.
|
| Still there seems to be a lot of black and white thinking in
| the line of "But we are the good ones, we have reasons, but
| just look what the bad ones do". I refuse to take part in
| this narrative. The world isn't as simple as that.
| danjoredd wrote:
| I think its less holocaust and more pornography these days.
| That and violent video games are heavily censored for
| nonpolitical reasons like gore, nudity, etc. I am glad they
| censor the holocaust glorification, but I wish they would
| leave in the other stuff.
| danjoredd wrote:
| It is more extreme in China than in America. In addition to
| sex, lgbt, and other things of a similar nature, movies with
| magic are especially rejected. Ever notice how movies seem to
| be getting more bland and milk/toast each year? its because
| there is a lot of money in China, and China only accepts a few
| foreign movies each year. Disney, Warner Bros, etc. all want a
| slice of that pie so they comply with Chinese censors as much
| as they can to get in. Germany is almost as bad, I agree, but
| companies aren't stooping to Germany. They stoop to China for
| the money, and it affects the whole of the west as a result.
| gernb wrote:
| I don't know if it's still true but a friend of mine married a
| German woman and we were a little surprised she had never seen
| "The Sound of Music" and she said, of course, it's banned.
| steve76 wrote:
| jrm4 wrote:
| I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay --
| while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g.
| American censorship go after?
| JBits wrote:
| Gay characters in cartoons is the first thing that comes to my
| mind. Such as censorship of gay couples in Sailor Moon in the
| 90s (including altering one to be a pair of cousins). More
| recently, the creator of the disney cartoon Gravity Falls had
| resistance from executives over their inclusion when making the
| show.
|
| Another is censorship of LGBT books in certain states.
| thebradbain wrote:
| The US _does_ have examples of government censorship in media,
| some more extreme than others. The fact you don't even think of
| it as censorship just shows how prevalent it is. It's not on
| the same level as the CCP, but it does exist!
|
| For example, during the AIDs epidemic, Reagan used his social
| and political power to effectively ban the mention of that word
| on primetime television (remember, not only was he the
| president of the United States, he was also once the president
| of the Screen Actors Guild). Not even Will And Grace, a 1998
| sitcom about a gay couple, was allowed to mention AIDs or HIV
| at all in its 11 season run!
|
| He's also the reason movies in the 80s got away with so much
| more than they did even in the 90s, when cultural values
| themselves hadn't changed that much comparatively. the MPAA
| board was completely sized up, what was allowed to be said on
| TV was changed, and seemingly arbitrary rules put in place
| ("Fuck" can be said only once in a PG-13 movie or once-an-
| episode in certain network shows ONLY if it's non-sexual). This
| is why you have classic kids movies like Who Framed Roger
| Rabbit (1988, PG) that if they were re-released today would be
| either R or possibly not even allowed to be shown a wide
| release in theaters.
|
| And you know, now we have the whole "banned books" things in
| (my home state of) Texas, Florida, etc, which almost
| exclusively censors books with deal with LGBTQ and race issues
| from even being available in a library to be checked out by a
| curious student on their own time (including, in a Dallas
| suburb and throughout Virginia, Anne Frank's Diary).
| cdot2 wrote:
| Anything you can think of you will be able to find that
| content. We simply don't have the kind of censorship that China
| has. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
| bagels wrote:
| Profanity and nudity are the categories here, at least for
| broadcast tv.
| concordDance wrote:
| > Anything you can think of you will be able to find that
| content.
|
| That's untrue. A trivial example is porn involving 17 year
| olds.
| timeon wrote:
| I bet you could gave other examples instead of escalating
| with pedophilia.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are
| not.
|
| Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the
| movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that
| could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| What? Plenty of movies are super critical of the military
| and the 3 letter agencies in tons of ways, heck there is a
| whole genre out there about Government military agent
| realizes he's doing bad things and goes rogue to correct
| those misdeeds.
|
| Then you've got things like Full Metal Jacket, which I
| don't think is getting anyone to sign up for the forces.
|
| Like Top Gun did well recently, but is one of the only
| movies I can think of in the past couple of years that
| actually portrayed the US military in a mostly positive
| light rather than the usual gamut which runs from
| ineffective bumbling ossfied and useless to straight up
| evil.
|
| I'm just saying you can make whatever you want in the US
| and portray pretty much any idea or theme, that doesn't
| mean people will like it, but you can make it. In China
| there is no similar comparison they'll take your studio at
| best or imprison you at worst.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I don't think so. I think it's in tons of ways _except_
| those that would really call into question the whole
| thing. Which is to say -- I think that to the extent that
| "the Military" controls its image, it's _smart enough_ to
| include just enough problematic stuff.
|
| So the ones that seem "anti-Military" are really "anti-
| traitors-in-the-Military," and/or the healthy kind of
| self-criticism.
| CrispinS wrote:
| I agree with your last sentence, but on the subject of
| positive portrayals of US armed forces, the studios
| actually have an incentive to play nice. The DoD will let
| film productions use real equipment and personal, but
| only after vetting the script and making changes as they
| see fit.
|
| For example, the Transformers movies:
| https://www.wired.com/2008/12/pentagon-holl-1/
|
| The general concept:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-
| entertainment_compl...
| rhcom2 wrote:
| Avatar is one of the biggest grossing movies of all time
| with a plot critical of the military and imperialism.
| banannaise wrote:
| Right. Censorship is accomplished _economically_. The
| government doesn 't ban content; it simply is the only
| legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will
| allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that
| promotes the military; that hardware is entirely
| unavailable for content critical of the military.
|
| Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an
| open question.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| I think it's pretty inarguably better? The alternative is
| never being allowed to be critical of the military at
| all. You don't need an f-35 or a tank for a documentary
| on American war crimes.
| cdot2 wrote:
| You have to really stretch the meaning of censorship for
| that to count
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > that hardware is entirely unavailable for content
| critical of the military.
|
| It's not _directly_ available. As in, you can 't film on
| a US naval vessel or on a US military base without their
| support. Stock footage or footage from public spaces are
| allowed. You may also be able to get the support of
| another country or make use of mothballed or otherwise
| decommissioned systems if you have the right connections
| and money.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Tide_(film)
|
| Used footage of the real USS Alabama, used a
| decommissioned (and sold-off) submarine, and a French
| aircraft carrier.
| S201 wrote:
| > The former was critical of the military in a way that
| could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.
|
| It most certainly "could" be made as there is nothing
| preventing a studio from doing so if they wanted to. It may
| not be commercially viable and thus it would not get green-
| lit by a studio but that's a world away from the government
| explicitly forbidding it.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| the kind of censorship that happens when you're building a
| multibillion dollar tent pole franchise for the entire
| planet is different.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| The argument would be that you can find critical views of
| the military - just not in a blockbuster movie.
|
| The question is why the people making the content in the US
| and China don't want to certain content. Is it because
| they're worried it won't be popular or because they're
| worried that it will be popular.
|
| I can't prove anything (how would you?) but I tend to think
| in the U.S. it's the former and in the China the later.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > The argument would be that you can find critical views
| of the military - just not in a blockbuster movie.
|
| You can, in fact, have critical views of the military in
| blockbuster movies in the US. But not if you want to use
| US military bases and aircraft and ships as sets for
| those movies, or to get support of the US military in
| making the movie. Depending on the particular movie, this
| could be a make-or-break deal for them (Top Gun, for
| instance, would be pretty shitty with stock footage of US
| aircraft carriers and aircraft instead of actual footage
| staged for the movie).
| egypturnash wrote:
| I have heard that if you criticize the US military in
| your film then they won't let you borrow tanks and other
| resources for it. If your film glorifies the US military
| then they will happily give you tons of resources for
| your movie, up to and including piles of money.
|
| This is not outright government censorship - you can
| still make a picture that says "the US military sucks" -
| but it certainly has an effect on big-budget films that
| want every dollar they can get.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| You're missing the point. American censorship doesn't have to
| be comparable for the question of what can be learned about
| our cultural bias from what we censor or self-censor to be
| interesting. What do we eliminate or simply refuse to produce
| because we can't bear to have our children see the world that
| way?
| stickfigure wrote:
| Find another thread in which to discuss it or start a new
| thread. Here it is is whataboutism and sounds like you're
| trying to justify the original censorship.
| jollybean wrote:
| No, it's not ridiculous at all.
|
| US programming is highly censored.
|
| 30 Rock had to pull episodes because of a gag where a
| 'completely insensitive dupish character' wore black makeup,
| to sing as a black person. It wasn't a problem in 2010 but
| all of a sudden it is in 2020. NBC will not be releasing the
| original.
|
| A ton of jokes and gags are self censored for a variety of
| reasons. Eddie Murphy's early specials would absolutely not
| be aired today for example and I suggest they may face some
| shelving at some point.
|
| Cultural standards differ.
|
| Now - obviously, there are political elements of censorship,
| and being in possession of 'banned materials' may be
| punishable etc. - and that form of censorship is 'not
| comparable'. But the cultural standards issue is.
| atemerev wrote:
| A valid question, I think. There _is_ censorship in America,
| mostly related to sex and nudity (for some reason, Americans
| are way more sensitive to this compared to Europeans). Or, say,
| smoking.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| America is much more sensitive about sex and nudity than a lot
| of other cultures.
|
| In _I, Robot_ , a scene that showed in the European version did
| not show in the US version. It was a full body nudity shower
| scene and the point was to show you how extensive his robotic
| parts were. They had to find some other means to explain that
| to the audience in the US and it wasn't even a sexual scene.
| Just full nudity (of Will Smith, to be clear).
|
| "Tentacle beasts" in, I think, Japan can do all kinds of sexual
| stuff that would be outrageous in the US and not shown here. I
| am not super familiar, so can't really elaborate.
|
| We also have a long history of using "coded messages" to talk
| about racial stuff in the US. When Elvis first aired, he
| sounded so much like a Black musician compared to what was the
| norm for music at the time that they would talk about what high
| school he was from as code for "This is a White guy" because
| segregation was a thing, so naming his high school was
| signaling his race.
|
| We have a history of censoring LGBTQ topics. I saw something
| once where they showed a deleted scene from an old black and
| white film about Roman history and the scene was a coded
| message about whether someone was gay or bisexual or something.
| They used some euphemism or other and it was considered too
| much and got cut.
|
| Violence. I have become a fan of things that are careful in how
| they show violence, showing just enough to know something bad
| happened while sidestepping unnecessary gore. I think that's
| generally a good thing, but it is a form of censorship
| nonetheless.
| js8 wrote:
| > America is much more sensitive about sex and nudity than a
| lot of other cultures
|
| Nudity.. maybe. Sex? Most American shows I have seen just
| CANNOT STOP talking about sex. Sure, they won't display it,
| but it's all about it. Even TBBT.
|
| (FWIW, comparing to Czech culture and TV series.)
| paxys wrote:
| People forget that before cable TV government-mandated
| censorship was commonplace in the USA for all kinds of media.
| And after that we just shifted the burden on to ratings
| agencies.
| goto11 wrote:
| The American way is voluntary self-censorship for commercial
| purposes. This makes it much harder to say what exactly is
| allowed and not, because it is easy to see what scenes have
| been cut from a show but it is impossible to say what scenes
| was never written or produced.
|
| Even blatant censorship like the Hayes Code or the Comics Code
| was never enforced by the government and therefore never in
| conflict with the 5th amendment. It was a voluntary
| "certification" manged by the industry itself, which just meant
| movies/comics not adhering to the code would not get a
| mainstream audience. So the code was implemented from the
| writing stage.
| autoexec wrote:
| > The American way is voluntary self-censorship for
| commercial purposes.
|
| The US government hasn't been able to resist censorship
| entirely. Comedians have been arrested for "obscenity". The
| FCC will happily go after certain violations in TV and radio.
| The US government has also censored news broadcasts and
| journalists.
|
| Bush in particular was very aggressive in censoring the news
| coverage of his war. Most notably, the flag-draped coffins of
| dead American soldiers were banned from TV news. During the
| Regan administration the Justice Department also briefly
| banned the Canadian film "If You Love This Planet" for being
| "foreign political propaganda".
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > what does e.g. American censorship go after?
|
| That's the "beauty" of arbitrary censorship: they'll start to
| self-censor for fear of being butchered like this. I'm sure
| there's a _lot_ of stuff that they don 't put into popular
| American media for fear that the censor board _might_ object.
| swayvil wrote:
| I think we mostly use emergent social media effects for that
| now. Puppeteered by popular pundits, superhero movies and the
| usual marketing.
|
| Unpopular opinions can lead to censorship, firing, lawsuits and
| death-threats. It works pretty good.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| In the US, you can get in a lot of trouble for publishing
| military secrets. (IE, you bet a movie that casually mentions a
| military secret would get into a lot of hot water right away.)
|
| Otherwise, the rest of censorship comes from social pressure;
| or someone with hurt feelings trying to twist the courts to
| enforce their will.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-29 23:00 UTC)