For the record. This post on Dr. Seuss has no place on HN. If it is allowed on HN but dissent ideas are not, then fuck off together with your woke HN points. I'm sick of idiots turned social warriors. Fuck off
Nitpicking and a pet-peeve but Elon Musk is an African-American.
You probably mean "black". They are not from Africa simply because they are black and for clarity we should stop being politically correct (especially when critical-race theory is so keen on language defining reality)
If a TV station broadcast a daytime TV show containing violence, racism, and a female nipple - which aspect would they get in the most legal trouble for?
I’m neither a lawyer nor an American (I assume we’re talking about America here), but my reading and experience would suggest that the first is glorified, the second is tolerated, and the third can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of fines even if it’s a fraction of a second by accident (eg the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show being a particularly well-publicised incident. The $550,000 fine was eventually dismissed, but only because “it’s unfair to apply this rule retroactively”, not because there’s anything wrong with the rule...)
- nipple: becoming more accepted, barring antiquated FCC rules that only really impact things like Superbowl. streaming seems to completely allow it.
- dirty words (f-bomb, s-bomb, etc.): roughly same as nipple. Yippie kie-yay Mister Falcon.
- racism: depictions of historical racism, e.g. History Channel are fine. racial slurs, racialized depictions (Apu on Simpsons) risk randomly getting episodes or entire series effectively banned (delisted and never shown again). applies to actors' and producers' personal lives, twitter feeds, etc.
- sexism, other-isms: racism-lite. there is a bigger emphasis on sexism in personal lives vs. racism in the actual show content. Seinfeld wasn't cancelled over Michael Richard's Laugh Factory incident and there are tons of sexist tropes on 80's/90's sitcoms that haven't haven't (yet) resulted in cancellation.
When you read the Skunk Works book you stumble upon passages where the government has to pay for tools maintenance and storage after the project is complete.
Some bureaucrat entity always decides at some moment that paying for storage of an arbitrarily old project tooling is not worth it.
How is that accurate? More, like, exaggerated to make a point but missing it by a mile.
Soviets did not give airtime to pro-party ideologues to validate their position. There was no competition between ideologues to get more airtime. The program was _dictated_ by the powers that be.
It's still a bad analogy, but it puts fewer words in my mouth. If there is a line from 'Youtube deleted my video' to 'the government rounded me up and threw me in a sanitarium' it's not a direct one.
Yes but that won't stop you from drawing/rationalizing _any_ conclusions from a set of facts. Not all of them will be right and fewer even will make any sense.
Which is indeed your prerogative until you mess with the laws of physics and start believing that because you move your arms very quickly you can fly, and that will stop you from falling off of a cliff.
There is a five-whys strategy to go to some bottom of an issue but even this strategy will fail you when you cherry-pick the answers to your convenience.
I think there's a misunderstanding? The comment 'Soviets put their dissidents into mental hospitals' was a reply to a comment by me. I provided an example (with which I, naturally enough, disagree) of a criticism of my original comment that would be, at least, somewhat fair.
I think I replied to assimilation of the idea of totalitarian regime institutionalizing otherwise mentally healthy people for dissidence to merely not letting them vent on radio.
Indirect lines explaining seemingly unrelated concepts are everywhere. They even made some shows about that.
However, linking these two particular concepts together is strange.
