←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 4 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.882s | source
Show context
debacle ◴[29 Aug 22 18:24 UTC] No.32641635[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>32641810 #
chabons ◴[29 Aug 22 18:37 UTC] No.32641810[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>32642047 #
didgetmaster ◴[29 Aug 22 18:57 UTC] No.32642047[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>32642534 #
1. joshstrange ◴[29 Aug 22 19:37 UTC] No.32642534[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>32642738 #
2. didgetmaster ◴[29 Aug 22 19:53 UTC] No.32642738[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>32642774 #
3. joshstrange ◴[29 Aug 22 19:57 UTC] No.32642774[source]▶
My apologies then. I read it differently and jumped to the wrong conclusion about the point you were making.
replies(1): >>32644698 #
4. didgetmaster ◴[29 Aug 22 23:08 UTC] No.32644698{3}[source]▶
Apology accepted. Sometime I too jump to conclusions when I shouldn't, so I understand.