'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
One wonders if there is an entire revolutionary class within China sharing South Park videos for freedom.
Police will show up to arrest you just for posting comments online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOAbkTs_a4
"Privilege" has lost all meaning in today's world. It's just a word to throw around to slow how "woke" you are.
Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
You may have been Lucky to have been born in the US, but not Privileged
But the reality is that as a white middle class male in the US, I do have the privilege to say things and do things in public that people who aren't white or middle class can't. The freedoms we have aren't equally distributed due to systemic racism and sexism.
I'm pretty anti-woke, actually, I hate the term.
To clarify - this is via them losing access to representation by being deemed a felon, and a lot more African Americans are sentenced with drug possession or intent to distribute than any other racial group proportionally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/black-people-more...
Not great, and certainly unacceptable, but not equivalent to not being able to "simply leave the house".
On another note, when did Caucasian become a term for white people? As an actual Caucasian, having immigrated to the US from a region near Caucasus, I don't get why people use the term so loosely. The debate is about skin color, just use skin color.
Ha! Gets me chuckling during every intense race-relation debate. I can't not hear it, now!
You: "yeah but I grew up in so and so and I never saw anything like that, plus I have a friend who is black and bla bla bla"
Come on...
Go ahead and reduce my argument to a strawman and put words into my mouth, but don't act like you're contributing to the conversation.
If you’re a female, it’s more difficult to be taken seriously or heard in meetings, and people constantly talk over you.
If you’re basically anything that’s not white, people will embarrassingly coddle or patronize you, if they’re not prejudicing you.
I never really thought about specific examples until I read this comment, but this is what came to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia required Supreme Court to override laws that violated the constitution.
If that's your standard for "least oppressed", I think your standards are very low.
What is ridiculous is to think that is an argument against the truth of parent's statement.
I question your definition of "objectively" in this situation
"Least oppressed society in HISTORY", this reads like a Trump tweet. Sure is some egregious lack of self-awareness.
These are just two incidents that immediately spring to mind to counter your cherry picking. White people are not free from the danger of being shot by police. In fact, there is evidence [3] that white people may be more vulnerable than black people in any given scenario, because scrutiny on police use of force has been applied disproportionately in cases of black victims.
1. https://reason.com/2012/06/12/family-of-west-point-graduate-...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27...
In addition, I am not viewed by a certain portion of the population as a oppressor based on my skin color.
If anything, sometimes I feel sorry for my white friends and am happy for my minority privilege of not being held responsible for things my ancestors did long before I was born.
This could all be in my head, but based on reporting and anecdotes from friends, I firmly believe that if a cop's being a dick and I call him/her on it, the cuffs will go on much more slowly than if I were another color or lived in a different neighborhood.
They shoot innocent, unarmed men to death as a matter of course, and get off with a few months' suspension, but somehow you think you can charge a cop for a "hate crime" for getting pulled over (conveniently concluding then that it's the black folk who are "privileged").
And I think there are plenty of things that are "privileges", but it's based on the idea that it is impossible to extend it to everyone. Being admitted to a top school is impossible to extend to everyone by the definition of a top school. Being believed in a court of law when it's just your word over someone else's, but being more trusted because you belong to a particular group is a privilege. Being let off with a warning at a traffic stop because you have the right face is a privilege. Living in the "good" part of town is a privilege.
Surviving a traffic stop without being shot by the cop should not be called a privilege. Being able to receive a competent education should not be called a privilege. These are things that can be extended to everyone and the words should reflect it, so that it's clear which things we should be fighting for, vs the things that are impossible for everyone to have.
This all sounds like a confusing semantics game.
A right gains its power from people's belief that it should be universally granted, and that they will stick up for others when that right gets breached. Once a thing gets redefined as a privilege there is no expectation for people to stand up for other privilege.
The left has tried to redefine harm to include "unequal result or outcome," which makes the entire principle meaningless.
We need to all band together to fight this or we will lose all of our privileges and rights.
Let's just discuss what your ancestors did to my ancestors! Because holy crap! That'll definitely fix our current day problems! No better cure for the present than to yell at each other about things that happened a few hundred years ago! Maybe if we turn it into a card game, we can have tournaments and see who's the most oppressed every year. As a Polish-Jew, I wonder where I'm going to be in the rankings in historical oppression. Oh wait, it doesn't matter. I'm going to focus on today instead.
The point to that statement, instead of trying to use this as a situation where America is to blame, because it always is, let's stick to the discussion at hand with China and their CURRENT atrocities. Because no country is innocent, no country is heaven sent. We're all trying to live in a world where this shit doesn't happen anymore. If we just look around and go "Well you're ancestors did this!" "And your ancestors did that first!", we're going to get no where.
Privileges are things granted to you, often conditionally, by someone else. Using the word often sounds quasi-religious to me: "Thank Privilege for this meal we are about to eat, and our safe home, ...".
most people didn't do anything do get whatever rights they are enjoying - they were just born into these rights while many other people don't have those rights. Pretty much definition of privilege.
> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
That argument works for the Lords Privileges in England too - the ancestors of those Lords were brutal knights who fought bloodily to become the Lords and to get and enjoy the Privileges themselves and by their descendants.
Wouldn't the world be wonderful if all 7 billion people had free speech?
when it is had by everyone then it is a right. Until that it is a privilege. For example voting in US was in the past a privilege of white male property owners, and today it is pretty much a right (if one discounts voter suppression state laws, etc).
Another example - free speech can, in theory, be had by everyone in Russia or China, yet it is really far from everybody having it there. Thus it isn't a right there despite that "can, in theory".
"Being born "into" these rights" is close to accurate, but misses the point. You (and everyone else) are born with a basic set of natural rights which exist regardless of how much or how little you can/do exercise them. People have been struggling for hundreds of years to avoid having those rights infringed upon, not to "create" them.
Privileges on the other hand, derive their authority from a secondary source. Driving, public education, etc are good examples of "Privileges" where society builds/pays for something, and members of that society are granted the privilege of its use. Compared with your right to free speech, which doesn't disappear because someone/something infringes upon it.
There is no such thing as the "natural rights" except may be for the right to die (and even that is contested by many governments (and super-government-powerful organizations of the past like the Church was for example)). Any rights are created as a result of an [usually temporary] equilibrium between various participating forces established and supported by violence or a credible threat of a such.
But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family?
> You may have been Lucky to have been born in the US, but not Privileged
It looks like the word "privileged", through all these fights on social media, has got a bad rep :-) How is being privileged different than being lucky?
Next South Park should do an episode that shows how greedy western leaders running opium/heroin for the better part of now two centuries, turned the most populous country into a paranoid dictatorial hellhole for the Chinese people.
US introspection would be too on the nose?
You ever ask yourself what percentage of the heroin/opium supply would be pulled off the market if China could extradite people from HK? More than 50%... and who gets hurt by that?
The reason this framing is despicable is that rights and privileges are not the same.
Being able to afford a Lexus is a privilege. Not everyone has it and that's OK.
Having access to clean water is a right. Not everyone has it and that's not OK.
Free speech is a right. Everyone should have it even if some people currently don't.
Due process is a human right in a way that having a title is not.
(It's still a right by the way, as I said it can be both)
Edit: Anyway, I don't feel the need to argue this since it's just a semantic argument but the general thesis is that I found your narrow definition of privilege to be surprising compared to how I've experienced people using it but English differs over geography so idk.
When you have a right to free speech and then someone puts you in jail for exercising it, it isn't that you don't have the right, it's that your right is being infringed.
Calling it a privilege that you don't have any time someone is infringing on your rights would mean that nobody's rights could ever be infringed, since any time they were infringed it would merely mean that you didn't have them to begin with. But you do. People have human rights even when someone is violating them.
Human rights are defended when we as humans refuse to stand idly by while they are violated. Which is why it's still important to identify the lines that are not to be crossed.
Muddling the fundamental safeguards that allow a free society to exist with the petty jealousy of who has a bigger house is only a boon to the despots who would tear those safeguards down.
The US draws the line at true threats, and inciting imminent lawless action, among others.
New Zealand now draws the line at simply sharing a manifesto along with anything else decreed by the Chief Censor.
China is much more strict, but who's to say where the line should be drawn? Not even western governments agree.
We decide where the line should be drawn through argument and public debate, and by refusing to comply with weaker definitions from anyone who can't convince us using reason that where they want to draw the line is actually in the interest of the people.
'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. "education is a right, not a privilege"'
Obviously whoever wrote that should be penalized because they mucked it up with their example, if privilege is a special right then how is education a right not a privilege?
But anyway, a privilege is something that is understood as something you have been given. The American Constitution holds that rights are something that one possesses innately, although a cynic might wonder what the difference is I think a close reading leads to the understanding that when a right is taken away it is by nature wicked that such a thing should be done, whereas the removal of a privilege would not be automatically unjust.
Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed.
on edit: sorry about the many typos, not going to fix though as I am dealing with pneumonia and near bed time.
The G&T program was basically training for grad school: indepdent study, project-based learning, access to computers and internet when they were rare, etc.
That training made a huge impact on my career (I am a post-scientist ML expert at a large internet company). I mentioned the program to some folks I went to school with and they pointed out this G&T program was not ever offered to them.
Interestingly, these kinds of systems end up being important for the long-term success of a country. but at the same time they tend to perpetuate privilege. Students who weren't in the highest level of classes weren't even given a chance to take the test
A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with solid institutions which grant you this right. That's all there is to the initial comment, I don't see why such a fuss.
I did not say that there was A priori, in a natural state, a right of free speech. I said what the American conception of rights is generally regarded as being - some support for my claims https://www.docsoffreedom.org/student/readings/equal-and-ina... https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history - many other articles on same subject available and should be easy to find.
Aside from that one can easily determine that the authors of the bill of rights were quite clear in almost every instance not to "grant rights". For example in the first amendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." most people say the First Amendment grants Freedom of Speech, but anyone with a decent grasp of the English language would have to say that it only makes it illegal to limit that freedom.
Now of course I am myself not quite happy with assuming inalienable rights to exist, it seems more reasonable in some ways to assume they were fought for or granted, that they came from somewhere and are not natural to humans. On the other hand I am at least as reluctant to assume a natural state and that I can know what rights, if any, might apply to that state.
So if you can expound on your knowledge of this natural state, please do so. I merely expounded on what the generally understood American conception of rights was, and did not presume to claim to know the truth of that conception.
It gets thrown around a lot, but it absolutely has a meaning.
Ever know anyone who says that "they ignore politics"? In many cases, those people come from a place that they can do that because it doesn't affect them that much, and certainly not as much as other people.
For instance: today the supreme court in the US is deciding whether it's ok to fire people for merely being gay.
To not have to worry about that is 'privilege'.
I mean at this rate, I seriously think in a decade or two, we're going to find a Holocaust level event has been going on in China that's going to make the Nazis look like amateurs. But instead, we're focused on stupid left/right political differences and figuring out whether gender binary bathrooms cause anxiety.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988
- https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1988-government-apologizes...
Yep. But maybe we should fix Guantanamo first
Mao killed way over 30 million. Absolutely incompetent, he manage to remain in power just using terror.
The other day there was an 70th anniversary of the founding of PRC and this criminal's gigantic picture was at the hotspot.
Not trying to defend either of them of course. But just for the record books we would should have a saner way of counting.
If you're going to attribute deaths due to lack of foresight then the inventor of cars probably have one of the highest kill counts. Or Genghis Khan for fathering such a large population of mortals who eventually needs to die.
I think you are overattributing his stupidity here. Engineered famine is a fantastic way to make sure populations that don't like you are less of a problem in the future. The Holdomor and Irish Potato Famine are two other obvious examples.
You kill everyone that doesn't agree with you, along with their family. That's anyone who didn't fight with you either. Let along just against. The 20-45 million that died from famine is in addition to a rough estimate of 30 million killed during and shortly after the revolution. You see the same in Russia too. Oh and in Cambodia. They all actually focused on the "intelligentsia" community first. Cambodia just decided to wipe them all out. Russia and China were big on making double sure they were with the party (not just neutral), before they passed up on killing them. The book 1984 really wasn't accidental in that regard. The more you could think for yourself, the more dangerous you were to the party.
It's not an accident that people are scared to criticize these governments. That's where John Steinbeck really fucked up in his book the Russian Journal. Saying "Oh, do you know anyone that's disappeared because of the soviet regime". If you don't know any Russians (at the time)... I mean, duh, you're probably not going to. But talk to even one dissident against the soviet regime in any of the eastern bloc, they'll give you a list of names of who they personally know.
[1] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02/05/who-killed-more-hit... [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7546833/amp/Chinese...
Wonder what she typed.
"Oh but those things we ban here are anti-PC, so we are offended by them", sounds eerily similar to, "Oh but those things we ban here are anti-CCP, so we are offended by them".
1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances
2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech
One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot.
China has mechanisms to change laws but they have to be routed through the proper channels. From what I understand, individuals can complain all they want, as long as they don't organize outside of these designated channels.
This definitely pisses off the % of western governments that use "grassroots" movements as an attack vector to undermine unfavorable foreign governments.
1. The US has long operated offshore prisons where human rights are routinely abused (though harvesting organs is never a thing I've heard of happening in them)
2. The US routinely silences comedians when they're reported to say something impolite or against the grain - remember Kathy Griffin?
As per statements by the white house[2] and other branches[3] that twitter account is an official channel of US Government policy, I think this is reasonable and generally accepted[4].
1. https://ew.com/news/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-br...
2. https://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-st...
3. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-...
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/07/11/tru...
1. It's pretty hilarious and approachable for young minds, here's an archive version for the curious https://archive.org/details/MarxForBeginners-English
I agree China and the US are in radically different places, but there are serious problems of some degree in many places right now.
They subvert free speech with the heckler's veto, and there's nothing anyone can do about them, "democratic" or not.
You've just described India under Modi...
If the folks in UK got released 2 months later, everything's ok?
How about if the law is written so strictly that everything is an offense, such that it's impossible to enforce on everyone, and you choose to not enforce it against people you like? Any case where it is enforced, you can still point to the law and say the outcome aligned with it.
And what if the law unequivocally says a certain group of people are slaves, is this justified simply because the outcome is not arbitrary and there is a codified rule of law? Whether the law is right or wrong does matter.
Edit in reply to below: the issue in China is precisely that the government's response to criticism is unpredictable. If Xi Jinping criticizes Chinese policy, that means a new policy is now in place. If a random guy on the street criticizes Chinese policy... maybe he'll be fine? Or maybe not. Depending on where and to whom he says it and how nice public officials are feeling that day.
If China elected Xi in a free and fair election, if they developed faster than light travel and clean fusion power then everything would definitely be ok!
But here in the real world I'd like to hear the story of this hypothetical Chinese lady who got a phone call, let alone a lawyer. Was she rich and a well connected communist party official? Or more likely this is just a made up happy fantasy, like warp drives?
It also scares me that so many people are willing to say, "At least we have the rule of law unlike that video." If the end result is exactly the same, that's scary.
But also, as long as somebody can show you horrendous atrocities happening elsewhere, you are willing to let minor local infractions of the rule of law stream by? Just show orphanages getting carpet bombed and it's not a big deal if we mistreat immigrants. Show immigrants getting mistreated and it's ok if we arrest homeless for sleeping in the park.
When I was young, Germans were bad guys. Then Russians. Then Chinese or North Koreans. Back to Russians. Or Mexicans. Or Canadians. Fight for justice in Africa. Feel safe and secure in your own benevolent democracy.
Watch two videos of the exact same behavior and excuse one of them because it is happening in a place that practices the rule of law. Condemn the other because of their voting system.
Edit: the point is that neither is ok.
For the time being, while the government may be autocratic, it is enforcing it's law and you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world where the rule of law rules harder.
China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the official don’t want to enforce (see China’s constitution that with freedom of speech, assembly, and so on...). By definition, this concentration of power is authoritarian, so these things go hand in hand.
I think from country to country the amount by which different branches check one another will vary - and I agree that stronger checks leads to a stronger government - I just disagree that this is a black and white issue rather than a grey one.
I really don't disagree that China's government is crap, but things aren't black and white, all peoples everywhere are struggling for a good balanced government and pushing back against oppressive governments - that said in China, while people are disappeared, there is a general rule of law for the general populace... Normal folks can get by with a decent orderly life, it's constrained and they do lack a lot of freedoms Americans enjoy, but I would draw a stark contrast between living there and Cambodia, Pakistan, Venezuela or Russia - those are countries where law doesn't rule and personal safety is no guarantee.
As an aside - oh look at this neat thingy[2] a rule of law ranking - I had no idea it existed.
1. In theory, at least, the communist party appoints the chairman - a number of seats within this representative board are freely elected, though some are essentially super delegates that get a guaranteed seat. More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Communist_...
2. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...
Yes, China has laws and those laws are often enforced, you won’t get away with murder probably. But if an official feels like they want to intervene, all bets are off; the only recourse for justice are the whims of an even greater official.
And I’m not saying that China is a dangerous place to live: as long as you don’t go against the party’s (or a family member of such) interest, you aren’t going to be effected by a lack of rule of law (though you still have to be careful of rule by law). The pollution will kill you before anything bad happens to you in china’s legal system.
Are the actions taken by the enforcement arm of the sovereign power fairly predictable according to the code of law they publish, or is there are there numerous uncodified “rules” you must also abide by?
Are political enemies executed or punished during regime changes, or are regime changes regular, peaceful and governed by law? Are the families of political enemies also punished?
Does the legislative power pass ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder? Are property rights respected? Do laws pass through a formal process or at whim? Are Courts of Law and Equity independent?
e.g.
> The Rule of Law is an intrinsically abstract idea, which finds itself grounded in philosophical and moral conceptions. One of its most basic tenants is that all people, whether they be at the lowest level of citizenship or the highest, being the sovereign or government ruler, are all equal under the law itself. This means that no one is above the law, and any law that is broken should be equally punished across the board, regardless of status in society or local community.
> It is also associated with the concept of natural law, which basically claims that because we all belong to the larger human community, everyone must be treated under the same laws and possess the same rights.
vs.
> In contrast, Rule by Law is a concept that sees the governing authority as somehow being above the law, and has the power to create and execute law where they find it to be convenient, despite the effect it has on larger freedoms that people enjoy. To expand on this idea, rule by law is a method that governments and people in power use to shape the behavior of people, and in terms of governing a country, mass groups of people. This usually has the end goal of psychologically or forcefully persuading people to agree with policy decisions they otherwise would not agree with.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Why does most of the Chinese use "whataboutism" to defend their country?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-most-of-the-Chinese-use-whata...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/t...
I applaud them for doing this even though it'll mean nothing but trouble for them, any positive PR they're getting this will be drowned out by pressures coming out of China and the loss of a giant market - still, good on ya mates.
I've noticed a trend on this site in particular where we collectively wonder if our western media is a part of Chinese counter-culture. Is this hubris uniquely American?
I believe many Chinese citizens are aware that their situation is not ideal ("oppressed" is probably not quite the right word), because I believe at least some subset of Chinese citizens are not brainwashed morons and any idiot can see what's going on.
If they really had overwhelming support, they wouldn't need to censor so hard. Banning images of Winnie the Pooh demonstrates weakness.
Yes? Would you want to try circumventing the great firewall without getting caught?
I fear the Chinese are mostly supportive. Most Germans also supported Hitler before things went awry, and his election results were superb even before massive manipulation began.
There was still a substantial minority that didn't support him and resisted at great personal cost, much like some educated Chinese citizens are resisting at great personal cost now, knowing that many share their sentiments, but assuming that most people will find a way to look beyond the propaganda seems overly optimistic to me.
My insight into this comes mainly from professional Chinese scientists who were previously trained in the US but returned to China because there were better scientific opportunities. Many of them have told me (in person, while visitng the US) that they have to use VPNs to get their work done, and as long as they are relatively cautious, circumspect, and don't repeat what they see to others, they are tolerated.
It seems we agree.
>assuming that most people will find a way to look beyond the propaganda seems overly optimistic to me.
Most people? Yes, that would be overly optimistic. But enough people to render "overwhelming support" inaccurate? Not overly optimistic at all.
When the majority of the people think as described above the only thing that can bring change is an economic downturn, but would that change be for the better or would it be in the direction the North Korea is taking?
I always find this argument preposterous as someone ethnically Chinese hearing it from a nationalistic Chinese, 10 years younger, from China full of fervour. What exactly have they experience in life that is so full of hardship? To me, it seems like a convenient excuse to brush away any criticism of their actions. No one can criticise them because of what X and Y did to them 150 years ago. Seems like a cop out to me.
I suspect the Chinese government has something to do with this mentality.
And North Korean's overwhelmingly praise the "Supreme Leader" with tears in their eyes. Ever see old video of Hitler addressing the masses? The people seem overwhelmingly supportive.
One of the lessons from the falls of authoritarian governments was how big a gap there was between public expressions of support and peoples' true feelings.
China comes from having the majority of its population starve, thanks to Mao.
And before that there were 5 centuries of China going down that ended in things like USA ships patrolling its rivers, and Europeans their coast being in practice a colony and experiencing humiliation of watching external powers siphon out your wealth being too weak to protect yourself.
When the tendency is good everything if fine. When the tendency goes down, things will change.
The neoliberal experiment that started with Reagan and Thatcher put paid to that, and it's become all about the individual. Even when it is clearly to the detriment of individuals.
Of course Western media is part of Chinese counter-culture. We live in a global society. The interesting question is how large a part - and which media?
Probably not, but evidence does point towards a general attitude of "surely everyone wants to be like us, we are the best country in the world afterall"
To be fair, that's generated from many immigrants who come to the USA with the feeling that "this is the land of opportunities and freedom". Granted, when you come from somewhere like soviet occupied Poland, it doesn't really take much to find a land of opportunity and freedom. But other immigrants from other countries say the same.
If you're an American and a majority of your experience with foreigners are the people that come in saying that, and one of their proudest days is becoming an American citizen, you generally get an idea that America is a pretty good country. As a first gen, I don't see American's having pride in their country as fully unwarranted. It's not like other countries are without their fuck ups.
There certainly is an entire generation who is ready for reforms if not an outright democratic revolution, but no I don't believe their end goal is freedom to pirate South Park video clips.
Oh, there certainly is, especially among the richest of the rich. The whole point of censorship is for control.
It's interesting that we used to think the more connected we were the more other countries would see and appreciate our democracy and start to adapt it.
This is the first time I can remember communism and censorship flowing the other way.
> “It’s not worth living in a world where China controls my country’s art,” says one character in the episode.
About sums it up.
Communist regimes collapsed not because they deprived people of their freedom but because their economies failed.
Autocrats like Putin and Xi are popular at home because their economies are growing and people's lives are improving, even though individual freedoms are slowly but surely eroding.
Trump was elected and is still in office because he gave hope for prosperity to people who had long lost it, and they will support him no matter how damaging he is for the rest of the country, the world, or their own freedom.
Neither Russia nor China have free elections. The Russian economy is shrinking fast and Putin's popularity is disingenuous. That may not be true for Xi. The Chinese are riding a humongous economic growth, they don't question their party much because they like the results and don't want to rock the boat.
Censorship is an up hill battle. It is way easier to defy them than it is for them to block us.
I got that impression because I watched "Mexican Joker" after that, and when the immigrant kids arrive at the detention center, and the welcome is being translated for them, the mangled Spanish, while brief, was brilliant in its mangling. I appreciate that care to detail.
I think its fine if people want to make movies for the China market, but what I find alarming is copycat behavior trying to bring that sort of censorship here.
It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone should apologize or censor themselves creatively just because someone got salty about it. I find the notion limiting someones creative expression to someone else's judgement of "appropriate" to be despicably egregious.
Sure you can vote with your dollar and time by not watching something you don't like, but its the creators prerogative what to create and what not to create.
Anyone arguing the contrary on the effects of censorship has not looked into the origin of the word.
...Which is hilarious, because they are heavily subsidized by the US military for advertising reasons.
That is the point this episode of South Park very deliberately avoids talking about.
Nobody's stopping them from creating art. Really is, unfortunately, putting constraints on which kind of art is going to get bankrolled by millions of dollars of say, Hollywood money.
Those constraints have always been there, and will always be there.
Want free speech? Don't ask for other people's money... They may have opinions about what you should say, using it.
It's just that phrasing the issue as:
"My artistic freedom to make whatever art I want, AND to make millions of dollars in China is being infringed upon by China's domestic policies."
Doesn't sound particularly noble...
The law does not compel you to censor your art. This self-censorship is driven by greed, not legislature. If you aren't interested in selling in China, their laws on speech have no impact on you.
And I don't mean that I will make sure my kid won't be able to consume such content because it is censored or dubbed down to please Chinese markets, kid's to small to understand, but to the increasingly crappy quality of these shows.
[0] “The China Probrem”: https://images.app.goo.gl/mDqxY6pSuNHtA66M8
You could have 200 things mentioning a country or situation, and only 1 or 2 going viral and getting some kind of major response.
It's not like South Park is the only show making fun of China either -- so of 100s of shows and comedy sketches, etc, it was some part that touched a nerve or accidentally got more popular there...
My model of the Chinese government at the moment is that they primarily care about opposition/disrespect/criticism of the Chinese government. Does anyone have data points as to whether they care about, say, present-day racist insults of (a) Chinese-Americans; (b) Chinese living in China? Might be interesting to see where the lines are drawn.
Or... the portrayal isn't actually targeting group of the character embodying the trope. It's targeting those that hold such tropes, in a way that exposes the absurdity of them.
There was a movie few years ago, Tropic Thunder. Robert Downy Jr is in black-face the entire movie, and it's hilarious - and somehow he isn't cancelled. Why? His character in the movie is a white, self-serious method actor (he stays in character all the time), who had medical treatments to alter the pigment of his skin in order to portray the African-American lead in a movie. And his depiction is one giant super charged trope. But the actual butt of the joke isn't black people - its actually the pretentious actors and Hollywood in general. In essence, its making a statement about the absurdity, self-importance, actors, studios, etc in Hollywood, and the lack of the social justice and equality there.
South Park wields "*ist" tropes in a similar way, and I think its incorrect to think of it as racism, or xenophobia, etc.
In South Park, there's one black character in the cast, and his name is Token. As in the token black kid. Out of context, and on its face, it might seem racist. But its saying something else, just like RDJ's role in Tropic Thunder.
Thank you, it just clicked...
You should really actually watch the episode. It's a blatant dig at China's government, censorship policies, and treatment of political prisoners. Its treatment of `China invading the US` were not out of `paranoia`, as you say, but based out of reality. It attacks Disney for making similar concessions to the Chinese government in its MCU movies.
Spoilers, but deeper analysis:
Randy's story arc this season appears to revolve around surrendering your morals for the next dollar- for example, last season he turned down a deal with a large marijuana corporation to continue his home-grow operation, but proceeded to create a partnership with them in the season premiere to ensure his stake in South Park's weed market. The scene where he garrotes Winnie the Pooh in this episode, to me, is an extension of this same theme- the sellout of what we've taken as sacred, except now, it's to China's CCP. Contrast that to the name of Randy's farm, which is a bastardization of the word `integrity`.
The entire segment about the band biopic in this episode is basically saying the same thing but far more overtly.
Well, stereotypes of Chinese aren't eloquent enough to piss off the CCP. As a mainlander, Band in China is a spot-on satire about China under Xi's ruling (apart from the background music), and every threat to the legitimacy of the authority would be quenched while making fun of Chinese ppl is by no means harmful.
> John Cleese in On Creativity said: "the self-important always know with some level of their consciousness that their egotism is going to be punctured by humor -- that's why they see it as a threat. And so {they} dishonestly pretend that their deficiency makes their views more substantial, when it only makes them feel bigger. {John blows "raspberries" with his tongue.} No, humor is an essential part of spontaneity, an essential part of playfulness, an essential part of the creativity that we need to solve problems, no matter how 'serious' they may be. " [1]
Not everyone is appeasing authoritarians, definitely not South Park.
China is Cartman right now "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!"
source: woman i cared for when working in a home for the elderly. she had a number tattoo.
One is about being offended by things, the other is about coming forward about having been sexually assaulted or showing solidarity for them.
Let's keep clear and separate distinctions between people being offended and people being raped.
To me women's rights needs to be distinguished from #metoo for this reason, but in any event I don't think the gp comment was totally inappropriate in equating "wokeness" and #metoo as having a large social impression management component (even if you disagree with it).
Still, they do specifically call out groups. I can't think of any that are actually safe or get a pass. I mean, they rag on Christianity and Judaism all the time. Then they do an episode harpooning and calling out atheists & Dawkins for being a bunch of assholes and make the case that religion isn't so bad.
I don't know if we'll ever see another South Park. Tight turn around times on episodes so their content is fresh and relevant. Best example of balanced opinion thus far... as a show where kids swearing and making fart jokes are the tame/mild highlights of the episodes... It's just... I think it's a straight up anomaly, not simply a unique situation. Seinfeld being as long running, successful and "sophisticated" show, that was unique. South Park said "hold my beer" to that and then shits in your hand just to get laughed at by a fat kid with an alien dish satellite popping out of his ass. And we are all okay with it!
We need more, not fewer South Parks.
Not that I agree with their every riff (being of the Evangelical ilk) but their irreverence is as American as the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
We either wear our South Park with pride, or become as Hong Kong or Venezuela or another country people are fleeing.
I guess with all these things it’s about context and the political climate.
[1] https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjJmMTUzOGEtYjEyNS00...
If so, let me know, I'd be very interested in studying their logic thinking and memory, and how they manage to be consistent at all.
That said, there are billions of reasons why things was reacted this way or ignored altogether, and later differently.
That's the norm.
https://southpark.cc.com/sitewide/img/messages/geoblock/gb.j...
The irony is not lost...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.ht...
> Is that a real thing Chinese people get upset about?
Most likely not their people, but their government.
It is the leader, who appointed himself as dictator for life, who can't stand this joke. And has forbidden it.
Chinese people laugh at the joke. It is only that the leader finds it not funny at all.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/2187566/hit-taiwane...
https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/3/20681075/devotion-china-cen...
An entire company permanently shut down! The CN government takes it seriously.
The CCP gets upset about it.
China votes with wallet
Americans: "This is 'authoritarianism'"
People are still trying to the same thing, instead of engaging a conversation (for both parties). But people need to understand that such mocking will later be used another proof that westerners are not sensitive enough to Chinese people and government's feeling...
I am ATM plainly paralyzed by the superficial self-indulged righteousness from both parties...
Those two thrive on this kind of controversy, I can basically picture them sitting back and rubbing their nipples while watching this unfold.
We need more people like Trey Parker and Matt Stone who aren't afraid of starting some controversy to get a conversation started. They choose to do it through cartoons and satire, but I honestly believe they understand our society at a fundamental level.
The part of Parker and Stone worth duplicating is that they they somehow have political opinions orders of magnitude better informed than whatever keeps celebrities and tv/movie writers so goddamn dumb.
Hell they even had the episode where they said “shit” uncensored and kept a counter for every time they said it.
If there’s any show that really can do whatever it wants, it’s South Park.
SOUTH PARK ©2019 COMEDY PARTNERS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COMEDY CENTRAL.
SOUTH PARK AND ALL RELATED TITLES, LOGOS AND CHARACTERS ARE TRADEMARKS OF COMEDY PARTNERS.
Maybe there's some nuance in rights vs ownership, idk.
As if several trillion business interests in the US making business with China are not enough to put pressure for this, it has to be Ivanka specifically...
(Kind of how proud Presidents in the past had put e.g. Saudi Arabia at their place, and din't "think of all the money", right?)
Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare.
Culturally, the US seems less tolerant of free speech than plenty of other places in the world. Obviously China is orders of magnitude worse, both culturally and legally speaking.
In fact many countries in Europe have blasphemy laws and they uphold them: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
Point is, every country has exceptions, and indexing on irrelevant edge cases isn’t especially useful. America is pretty darn good at free speech. But so is, say, Canada.
'free speech' also includes zero-evidence claims, and even lies! Freedom of speech == Freedom of fake news.
Why use hypotheticals when we can use real examples? Kosher and hilal have opinions on food and cleanliness, and no lawsuits to my knowledge. That stuff is like double first amendment protected, considering it's both speech and religion.
"Your carrots gives people AIDS." Is slander/libel and not protected by free speech. That can be taken as fact and can have consequences to the grower, if the accuser lacks evidence. For fuck's sake, we have anti-vaxxers and measles is coming back due to people making stupid ass claims. If there is evidence and the courts say the accuser was acting in good faith with information they truly thought was true, they may pass on penalties, depending on the situation. Otherwise, if it's bullshit evidence, free speech won't protect you and yo' ass shall burn.
Now freedom of religion and freedom of speech do spar with each other. But it depends on the situation. Mormons say that alcohol is a ticket to hell... a sin... or some shit. If they keep that crap to their own little group, generally no one cares. That also plays into the right to assemble. If they parade around in bars yelling at people that alcohol is a sin/whatever... well, A. trespassing, B. potential harassment, C. I think potential slander or some other form of loss of revenue for the bar. D. Don't live in a fucking mormon town, you idiot.
You can tell a politician that they're an asshole or their policy is stupid and they should feel bad about that. The gov cannot do dick all to you. An opinion on policy or the gov in general is protected. But you can't say a politician is a child murderer without ACTUAL proof. Youtube "research" into the lizard people taking over the planet doesn't count.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to be a cunt to society because you're some childish edge lord. If you really don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't vote either.
This is a better source than the Wikipedia I provided.
It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive government.
One of the most famous centers around the idea that no one should have the ability to decide what can't be said because that assumes infallability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp...
So, yes, from this perspective, freedom of speech exists to protect Holocaust deniers.
The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. I don't think there are very many Holocaust deniers and I also expect that, somewhat unintuitively, banning Holocaust denial would create more neo-nazis. Banning an idea confers a certain amount of glamour.
Suuure.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
> Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare.
There is at least a very good case to be made that the US has by far the strongest free speech guarantee. Commonwealth countries and the UK have nothing as strong as the first amendment. Canada’s free speech commitment is derisory in law because of the notwithstanding clause, the UK has the Official Secrets Act and Australia doesn’t have a right to free speech in its constitution.
I will pass over European countries with their Holocaust denial laws, bans on swastikas and the ECHR deciding that saying Mohamed was a paedophile as obviously having very weak commitments to free speech.
Maybe not the only country with true free speech protections but certainly it has the strongest.
Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't give you the right to someone else's audience. It doesn't give you license to harrass. It doesn't give you license to trespass (including a properly licensed/permitted event on public property). It doesn't give you license to disruptively yell over whoever you might be protesting. It doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious for the same of getting attention, like blocking traffic.
Hijacking someone else's gathering is infringing on both their right to free speech and their right to peaceful assembly. Go have your own assembly somewhere else. There is no right to disrupt. If you can say the same message anywhere else in the country without restriction or repercussion, then you're freedom of speech hasn't been infringed.
That said, and even by that standard, the US is the most tolerant of free speech by far.
> "The offences under the Act, that can be committed only by persons who, as the case may be, are or have been Crown servants, government contractors, or members of the security and intelligence services, can be committed only where the information, document or other article in question is or has been in the possession of the person in question by virtue of their position as such."
This seems less onerous then US laws related to classified materials. As with the UK, "normal" citizens are not bound by the law. However, those with a clearence are barred from speaking about classified material regardless of if they acuired access through their work. (They are also barred from reading classified materials, but that might be just a condition of maintaining clearence)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989
It's not often that I come across such a fine example of American exceptionalism.
78% of American citizens live in the 25+ states of the union that have passed actual laws that will punish you or your company if you even so much as voice boycotting a particular foreign country.
You really need to get out more often.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/9/18172826/bd...