pointsofdata posted:

Yeah it's fine, I don't get why she's complaining. They asked her some questions then let her go, that's all.

pointsofdata posted:

Yeah, weird how we only ever hear stories from people who got let go

BrainDance posted:

I'm not gonna get worked about about the anarcho-bidenists because youtube guy is dumb. It's less about agreeing or disagreeing with him than the way disagreeing with him is being used.

You can call it me being smug but I actually, honestly think it's a giant problem with the way shits talked about online now. I'm not so cynical that I believe people are really unaware, at least not here, so that leaves me with assuming some kind of bad faith.

THS posted:

edit: nvm. lol where is that map from gradenko

gradenko_2000 posted:

mila kunis posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/ChinaDaily/status/1379369871037800457

as long as the West keeps calling the fishermen in the South China Sea as "maritime militia", then China is always going to be able to claim that "we don't have any maritime militia in those waters, we don't have anyone that needs to leave, I don't know what you're talking about"

Deified Data posted:

So the CPC Streisand Effect'ed it into relevancy?

Chomskyan posted:

I have friends who live in China who say they're able to look up images of Winnie the Pooh on the internet, and that there are shops where you can buy Winnie the Pooh merchandise. I don't think it's really a thing outside the conversations of reddit edgelords

Dante80 posted:

But the main censoring (aside from the 2018 film that didn't pass muster) was with Winnie the Pooh association memes, like the ones I showed above, . Or this one, from the 2015 parade, posted in Weibo etc.



Not with the character itself?

Deified Data posted:

Kind of a dumb and sensationalist toic by the standard of this (good and informative) thread, but I'm curious about something. Is there merit to the whole "Winnie the Pooh jokes get under Xi's skin" narrative? Is that kind of content actually heavily moderated in China or is this another "Kim Jong-un died for the 50th time today"-type story? It's always kinda had that smell to me, like meme lords patting themselves on the back for how transgressive they are

stephenthinkpad posted:

Does the US make a big deal out of other "oppression of minority" issue to other country? outside of the Urghurs and the Rohingya?

I mentioned it earlier, both the Urghurs and Rohingya can be explained from the "anti-land based new alternate trade route" angle. Xinjiang is major trunk road of the Eurasia trade route and the Rohingya/Rakhine state is the end point of a potential BRI land route, which will become a much more important route if the US ever block Chinese trade from the Malaika strait. It is interesting when you think about it, US has push this "anti BRI" agenda for multiple administrations and its the only thing ressemble a modern day "Grand Strategy", a secret Grand Strategy.

I never thought about this, does US really sanction other countries on oppression of the ethnic minority? I know nobody from the US has said anything about Modi cracked down on the Kashmir Muslims, and I don't remember anything about the Myanmar military on the Karen minority. Has the US ever sanctioned Russia for the Chechens? Ethiopia on the Tigrayans?

stephenthinkpad posted:

Does the US make a big deal out of other "oppression of minority" issue to other country? outside of the Urghurs and the Rohingya?

I mentioned it earlier, both the Urghurs and Rohingya can be explained from the "anti-land based new alternate trade route" angle. Xinjiang is major trunk road of the Eurasia trade route and the Rohingya/Rakhine state is the end point of a potential BRI land route, which will become a much more important route if the US ever block Chinese trade from the Malaika strait. It is interesting when you think about it, US has push this "anti BRI" agenda for multiple administrations and its the only thing ressemble a modern day "Grand Strategy", a secret Grand Strategy.

I never thought about this, does US really sanction other countries on oppression of the ethnic minority? I know nobody from the US has said anything about Modi cracked down on the Kashmir Muslims, and I don't remember anything about the Myanmar military on the Karen minority. Has the US ever sanctioned Russia for the Chechens? Ethiopia on the Tigrayans?

sexpig by night posted:

Maybe? it's almost impossible to find actual, ya know, proof of that, just a lot of 'TRIGGER XI BY POSTING THIS PICTURE' poo poo and actual Chinese people being all 'we kinda don't...give a poo poo about this at all either way'.

This all just feels like when people tried to say the characters in Xi's name were banned online to 'prevent insulting comments', when in reality that would mean tons of words like 'practice' and 'study' and all would get you black bagged too.

quote:

Under monarchic, totalitarian, and authoritarian regimes, the authorities, as a rule, see parody, satire, cartoons, and political humor as a “resource” and a tool for influencing their subjects. Such regimes take themselves seriously and are prone to sacralizing their rulers and rituals. These systems of government also tend to regulate laughter. Here, humor can be as “bold” as you like, but it must pass through the highest degree of censorship. The most famous representative of this culture of laughter is the court jester, who exists thanks to permission from the highest level. The jester is allowed to say and do a lot, but he is, in fact, the ruler’s shadow.

A culture of “licensed” laughter is much more ancient than the political culture of ridiculing one’s opponents that exists in Western modernity with its political pamphlets and cartoons. The various traditions of jesters include the “parasites” (companions or hangers-on) of the ancient world, medieval jesters in caps and bells, and the fools (duraki) in the courts of Russian tsars and emperors. Their task was to entertain the ruler and ridicule those who the ruler wanted to snub; to know the court’s intrigues and to sense what line couldn’t be crossed.

While these historical jesters are a thing of the past, figures who perform similar functions and act according to similar rules are reproduced under totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. For example, the Soviet cartoonists, satirists, comedy writers, and directors who were allowed to work in the comedy genre could speak out against misfits and ridicule rule breakers (see for example, the satirical magazine Krokodil), tell meaningful parables (like the films of Mark Zakharov), and highlight “individual shortcomings” in the system (as seen in the comedy short film series Fitil), but they couldn’t impinge upon the system’s underlying principles. In this, Soviet humorists and satirists were somewhat like democratic “comedians.” But unlike them, they didn’t work for the public. Rather, much like their court jester predecessors, they entertained the rulers, ridiculed those the ruler wanted to snub, and knew what lines couldn’t be crossed. They weren’t part of the system — they were its support staff.

fart simpson posted:

https://s.taobao.com/search?q=%E5%B...0210406&ie=utf8

see for yourself

fart simpson posted:

just realized you might not be able to open this link outside mainland china.

it's a link to a taobao search for winnie the pooh stuff. there's thousands of shirts, mugs, toys, etc on sale right now, today

e: and re: being able to search for images: https://image.baidu.com/search/index?tn=baiduimage&ps=1&ct=201326592&lm=-1&cl=2&nc=1&ie=utf-8&word=%E5%B0%8F%E7%86%8A%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC

BrainDance posted:

You're right that I'm consistent, I'm not gonna deny that. My issue is with something that happens here (and not just here but, you know, that's where we are) pretty regularly and I've always thought that, yes, it should be dismissed. It's very stupid. A person who takes it seriously is a very stupid person.

What I'm talking about is, people cherry pick a few of the most ridiculous examples of something that disagrees with their ideology, frame it as if it's representative of all disagreement, then do a whole song and dance about disagreeing with the world's easiest target who is barely representative of anything that matters.

It's the same thing you get from the Shapiros and Crowders. The point isn't to actually, you know, do anything it's just to 'own' someone to feel good about what you believe without any of the hard work. And if you act like it's representative of your disagreement then you never ever actually do have to do the work anyway, your ideology is completely safe. That's what I mean by crazy uncle's facebook, you know the uncle who has these weird conflicting ideas of how everyone who disagrees with him, everyone left of Mussolini is some effeminate caricature with green hair, but also super spooky antifa (which he never really defines.) Except here it gets to be a whole echo chamber of it. They're all the caricature to him, so no one who disagrees with him can ever actually be right about anything, so they can dismiss them out of hand. It's the most unbelievably smug thing, so excuse me for sounding smug back.

Or... Huffing your own farts...

I, also, think Vaush is incredibly dumb. Nobody likes Vaush. This is Vaush
https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1379123931580231686?s=20
I'm not gonna get worked about about the anarcho-bidenists because youtube guy is dumb. It's less about agreeing or disagreeing with him than the way disagreeing with him is being used.

You can call it me being smug but I actually, honestly think it's a giant problem with the way shits talked about online now. I'm not so cynical that I believe people are really unaware, at least not here, so that leaves me with assuming some kind of bad faith.

Vasukhani posted:

basically no

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2021/03/30/a-culture-of-laughter

Dante80 posted:

This is a self inflicted wound of sorts. If the government hadn't scrambled to censor anything and everything related to the matter at hand (and is still continuing to do that religiously), the whole thing would have been completely forgotten..

I don' think Xi even knows about that to be honest. Just standard procedure by the bureaucrats that is seen as "devastating commentary" by the trolls.