←back to thread

1444 points feross | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
TazeTSchnitzel ◴[] No.32641381[source]
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.
replies(11): >>32641593 #>>32641959 #>>32641967 #>>32642113 #>>32642265 #>>32642275 #>>32642430 #>>32642432 #>>32642533 #>>32642820 #>>32643185 #
sltkr ◴[] No.32641967[source]
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.

replies(14): >>32642023 #>>32642126 #>>32642156 #>>32642213 #>>32642279 #>>32642286 #>>32642594 #>>32642617 #>>32642729 #>>32642795 #>>32642889 #>>32643010 #>>32644101 #>>32644466 #
commandlinefan ◴[] No.32642279[source]
> 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?

replies(2): >>32642442 #>>32642655 #
wizofaus ◴[] No.32642655[source]
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.

replies(4): >>32642800 #>>32642879 #>>32642903 #>>32642999 #
Beltalowda ◴[] No.32642800{4}[source]
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.
replies(1): >>32643015 #
wizofaus ◴[] No.32643015{5}[source]
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.
replies(1): >>32643052 #
1. Beltalowda ◴[] No.32643052{6}[source]
But they're not the same things at all; I don't think age-ratings are "censorship".
replies(1): >>32643106 #
2. wizofaus ◴[] No.32643106[source]
In Australia they are: https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/wha...