[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)