Chinese Internet censorship

[Humodour]

Oh China...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_crab_(Internet_slang)

[Malcador]

Somewhat related - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396659,00.asp

[Humodour]

Somewhat related - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396659,00.asp

 

Yeah that's how I stumbled across this. The Pakistani ban is wildly ridiculous. It'll likely require significant network quality degradation to enforce, but if you take a look at the word list, it's ****ing crazy. And they don't seem to be censoring their own language.

 

They banned 'beastiality', so I guess having sex with animals is bad only if you can't spell bestiality properly. They also banned sniper, hostage, stroke, deeper, looser and herpes. What could possibly go wrong.

 

What a ****ing pathetic 'government'. Then again, apparently their military is about to stage a coup d'

[Malcador]

Most of them I can nod with and see why. But...'Budweiser' is banned ? (beer snobs I guess)

[Walsingham]

Most of them I can nod with and see why. But...'Budweiser' is banned ? (beer snobs I guess)

 

Chinese government makes beer. Budweiser are competitors. I guess.

 

Pretty redolent example of what full state control results in. Oh come our glorious revolution, eh?

[Gorth]

Most of them I can nod with and see why. But...'Budweiser' is banned ? (beer snobs I guess)

 

Chinese government makes beer. Budweiser are competitors. I guess.

 

Pretty redolent example of what full state control results in. Oh come our glorious revolution, eh?

Actually, it is Pakistan that is banning "Budweiser". Probably a bit protectionistic, clinging to their own Murree beer. Not like the Pakistani beer market is that big to begin with.

[Gromnir]

legitimate governments have nothing to fear from the free exchange of ideas, regardless o' whether or not those ideas could possibly disrupt a "harmonious" society. 'course, before all the europeans nod agreement, keeps in mind that virtual all western nations (save for one or two notable exceptions) has laws that criminalize speech that has a tendency to offend identifiable religious, ethnic, or cultural groups. the argument for limiting rude speech is 'cause o' the tendency to disrupt harmonious society, no? yeah, the degree to which pakistan and china tends to censor is greater than in the average eu state, but am thinking that a looksee in the mirror might be necessary to be avoiding some blatant hypocrisy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Enoch]

Keep in mind that what "democracy" there is in Pakistan is essentially dressed-up feudalism. When there's an election, the Sindhi patriarchs make sure that all the peasants from Sindhi regions vote for them; same goes for Punjabi leaders, Pashtun leaders, etc. There are essentially 2 socially acceptable options outside this: Islamists and the Army. Islamists have some pretty reprehensible policies, but are really the only populist movement in the country that resists the major parties. The military, by comparison, is the only thing close to a meritocracy.

 

I'm guessing that the banning of "Budweiser" is more because alcohol is forbidden by the Koran.

[Cantousent]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,405232,00.html

 

I guess that ban means a little more for imported beer than the domestic stuff in Pakistan.

[Walsingham]

Actions spring from thoughts. The notion that any and all thoughts are innocuous is purest mountain-spring hogwash.

 

EDIT: Please note that in line with new EU directives pure mountain spring hogwash is not intended to be used as an anti-dessicant.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Walsingham

[Gromnir]

Actions spring from thoughts. The notion that any and all thoughts are innocuous is purest mountain-spring hogwash.

 

EDIT: Please note that in line with new EU directives pure mountain spring hogwash is not intended to be used as an anti-dessicant.

 

 

am assuming the aforementioned is just random, non-sequitur gibberish, 'cause nobody we seen has suggested that "all thoughts are innocuous." ideas can be terrible and powerful, but no legit government is afraid o' the free exchange o' ideas. there is many options for dealing with dark thoughts 'mongst the populace, but censorship of thoughts is antithetical to the liberty notions embraced in most free societies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nepenthe]

Actions spring from thoughts. The notion that any and all thoughts are innocuous is purest mountain-spring hogwash.

 

EDIT: Please note that in line with new EU directives pure mountain spring hogwash is not intended to be used as an anti-dessicant.

 

 

am assuming the aforementioned is just random, non-sequitur gibberish, 'cause nobody we seen has suggested that "all thoughts are innocuous." ideas can be terrible and powerful, but no legit government is afraid o' the free exchange o' ideas. there is many options for dealing with dark thoughts 'mongst the populace, but censorship of thoughts is antithetical to the liberty notions embraced in most free societies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Actions spring from thoughts. The notion that any and all thoughts are innocuous is purest mountain-spring hogwash.

 

EDIT: Please note that in line with new EU directives pure mountain spring hogwash is not intended to be used as an anti-dessicant.

 

 

am assuming the aforementioned is just random, non-sequitur gibberish, 'cause nobody we seen has suggested that "all thoughts are innocuous." ideas can be terrible and powerful, but no legit government is afraid o' the free exchange o' ideas. there is many options for dealing with dark thoughts 'mongst the populace, but censorship of thoughts is antithetical to the liberty notions embraced in most free societies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

snip

 

is a funny picture... just not relevant. the uc davis cops were enforcing University policies and not some kinda state-sanctioned violence. supposedly the cops were surrounded and felt threatened, but we don't see it in the videos. regardless, is just a funny photoshop bit. go ahead and show us a picture o' a cross-burning in alabama or missisipi. is hardly some kinda proof that the US supports or embraces kkk activities.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps removed the pic from the quote to reduce clutter

Edited November 21, 2011 by Gromnir

[Nepenthe]

is a funny picture... just not relevant. the uc davis cops were enforcing University policies and not some kinda state-sanctioned violence. supposedly the cops were surrounded and felt threatened, but we don't see it in the videos. regardless, is just a funny photoshop bit. go ahead and show us a picture o' a cross-burning in alabama or missisipi. is hardly some kinda proof that the US supports or embraces kkk activities.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps removed the pic from the quote to reduce clutter

There's a slight difference between acts committed by people in white hoods and those with stars on their uniforms

 

I've seen what cops look like when they feel threatened. That guy is not it.

[Gromnir]

is a funny picture... just not relevant. the uc davis cops were enforcing University policies and not some kinda state-sanctioned violence. supposedly the cops were surrounded and felt threatened, but we don't see it in the videos. regardless, is just a funny photoshop bit. go ahead and show us a picture o' a cross-burning in alabama or missisipi. is hardly some kinda proof that the US supports or embraces kkk activities.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps removed the pic from the quote to reduce clutter

There's a slight difference between acts committed by people in white hoods and those with stars on their uniforms

 

 

walk into any mall or bank in the US and you will see folks with stars on uniforms. doesn't mean as much as you suggest. in alabama and mississippi, the guys with white hoods often also have stars on their uniforms. *shrug* and no, there really isn't much of a distinction, unless you can somehow show that the action of the University cop in question was actually the result of some sort of state-sponsored policy or directive. one college campus cop with pepper-spray does not a policy make.

 

having worked in a correctional facility at the time when pepper-spray was first becoming popular, am gonna say that we was disturbed by how quickly security personnel grabbed for the spray. we were originally trained in MAB (managing aggressive behavior) and Pain Compliance. both mab and pain compliance inevitably result in having to lay hands on a "resident." as soon as you put hands on a resident, bad and unexpected things can happen. an arm-bar with a circle down to a prone position Should be simple, but it frequent is not. too much pressure, or dealing with a particular resistant resident, and you gots to explain a sprained wrist, broken arm or snapped collar bone. pepper spray, on the other hand, typical results in little serious damage. yeah, it looks nasty, but is usually less dangerous than MAB or PC techniques. still, am gonna concede that we thinks that the availability o' pepper spray were a negative in the long run. some folks who woulda' talked their way outta a conflict before the advent o' spray now simply reach for their canister as soon as somebody fails the "attitude test."

 

...

 

we were actual warned to quit using major outer-reap throws. we never actual serious injured anybody, but we were questioned why we did not use pepper spray in such situations. residents would get aggressive or wanna fight, and Gromnir would end problem asap. we hated spray, particularly in confined areas. even so, we were very resistant to ever lay hands on a person. spray availability removes the natural reluctance o' sane people to avoid altercations.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Sure no healthy system is afraid of a minority view at T1. But as T2, T3 etc. comes around ideas can grow. Then the 'legitimate' government is seen as the one selling out to foreigners, or coloureds, or communists. It's a grave mistake to presume that free ideas are good ideas. But in terms of censorship there's not many that should be banned. Incitement to murder, for example.

[Gromnir]

Sure no healthy system is afraid of a minority view at T1. But as T2, T3 etc. comes around ideas can grow. Then the 'legitimate' government is seen as the one selling out to foreigners, or coloureds, or communists. It's a grave mistake to presume that free ideas are good ideas. But in terms of censorship there's not many that should be banned. Incitement to murder, for example.

 

 

again, who are you talking to? you really hate scarecrows, no? you must, 'cause the way you beat on those strawmen is kinda spooky.

 

as for "selling out to foreigners" as an excuse...

 

HA!

 

free speech is meaningless if you censor ideas and words due to popularity. again, look at the Chinese reasoning for censoring... sounds much like wal excuses. keep a harmonious society? bah. all minority opinions is unpopular... is the reason why they is MINORITY opinions. and the fact that you used perceived government legitimacy as a justifiable reason to limit Individual Liberties is a wonderfully illustrative example o' the hypocrisy we noted earlier. individual liberty rights exist to protect people from the government, not the other way around. sheesh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I can't speak for Walsh, but, from his post, I don't think he's advocating censorship. I was a bit confused by the T1, T2, T3 thing, but that's undoubtedly ignorance on my part about the terminology. I agree with him about the fact that all ideas aren't good ideas, but they should remain free. I agree with Grom that people, whether in minority or majority, should be protected from government oppression. Of course, in a representative government, the majority is usually pretty well protected since they have the largest influence on the government.

 

I'll be the odd man out on one thing, though. I don't necessarily think that the Davis police were wrong to use pepper spray to remove the protesters. The occupy movement has every right to speak, but that does not mean they have the right to take up residence in off limit areas in defiance of the law. It does not mean that they have the right to present a health hazard to the rest of the community. The University has not only the right but the obligation to uphold the law. I mean, if the KKK had set up a tent city in the same place, a lot of the folks crying foul right now would be cheering the police and chancelor for removing them. The means of removing the occupiers (pepper spray) is arguably much safer for both the police and the mobs than handling them bodily.