nycfoodie

Sigh. My goodness, I am not defending homophobia or any phobia, for that matter. In fact, I went out of my way to criticize the xenophobia I've seen on MDL.

If you actually took the time & effort to understand, or even read what I'm saying instead of what you think I'm saying, you'll see my argument is fairly straightforward. I am arguing for a general principle & using the particular example of C-ent policy re: BL content as a single case study to make my bigger point.

The point is that paternalism, which I define as the restriction of privileges for certain demographic groups for the sake of collective welfare may be justified in certain circumstances. Note I am intentionally not talking about rights here because this would be a stronger claim that would require stronger evidence & support. Not to mention, no group or persons within a group have the basic & innate ("inalienable") right to be represented on TV. If you feel otherwise, by all means, explain what would be the fundamental basis for such a "right?"

Now, of course, you could have problems with my argument for paternalism, but to call me a "homophobe" just because I suggest that the BL policies may not necessarily be irrational (maybe not even ill-advised) tells me you're reading more than what's there, not to mention making unwarranted assumptions about me & my moral character just because you've been indoctrinated with contemporary liberal Western ("woke") propaganda that tells you anything less than waving a rainbow won't do.

Ironically, you don't hesitate for a moment to condemn China for canceling BL entertainment content (without having even an iota of an idea about the thought process behind the policy recommendations). It's hypersensitive & overreactive, "woke" & virtue-signaling snowflakes like you & your kind that are first in line to trash anybody & any entity that cancel things that you want, but at the same time, have no problems canceling things or people that you don't like.

This holier-than-thou hypocrisy of the highest order is what has led to our current, sorry state of cancel culture. It's what made a martyr of someone like Charlie Kirk who, by the way, IS a true & diehard homophobe.

But feel free to keep accusing me of being a "homophobe" like Kirk. Talk about your "false symmetries!"

Not really.

Your argument is: why ban something (watch BL) if people are going to do it (watch BL) anyway?

I gave you various (counter)examples of things that are banned despite the fact that people do it anyway. And there's plenty more where that came from.

Not only isn't this "false symmetry," but also it's about as perfect an analogy as an analogy can get.

If you don't know or understand the rationale behind the Chinese entertainment industry policy recommendations, start by learning Chinese so you can read the relevant documentation in its original Chinese (instead of regurgitating gossip, rumor, &
speculation you've heard on Western social media).

Then study Chinese history, culture & philosophy so that you can get proper context regarding what you've read in its original Chinese. Then maybe I'll consider discussing this issue with you, but only if you ask nicely & politely!

Most of the people saying it's "boring" were expecting romance.

Yeah, they might even like it!

I typed out a lengthy response on my phone, but accidentally deleted the tab.

The gist of what I said is that you seem to see paternalistic government policies to be generally bad, so to the extent that China's communist government is paternalistic, you're going to disagree with what they do. In other words, your premise assumes the conclusion.

I think this is something that is an irreconcilable difference & a natural departure for our conversation.

It'll give me some time to process my thoughts better, but I still don't see how we can get around moral philosophy when discussing public policy because whether or not we subscribe to objective morality determines what we recommend and seek to implement.

Those who point to objective moral standards would prescribe liberal democracies for all governments, regardless of history & circumstances. I envision more pluralistic systems of governments, adapted to the historical cues & contexts from which they emerged.

I could take or leave romance. Which is why I posted the comment.

Exactly. I'm (gently) mocking those who keep asking this same question ad nauseum.

Is there romance?
No.

Is there romance?
No, its wuxia.

Is there romance?
No, there's no tag for romance.

Is there romance?
Sigh...

We're talking about limiting representation on TV, not the kind that's usually talked about. (We're muddling the discussion by using this term any other way.)

Does this limit cause unnecessary suffering, or any kind of non-trivial suffering at all? It's a reach to say so, I think.

Take Hollywood's representation of Asian Americans over the years. Stereotypically, Asian men were emasculated & Asian women hypersexualized, among other things.

Does this count as unnecessary suffering? If so, then why don't (can't) Asian Americans seek redress & reparations the way African Americans have for slavery & segregation? Why aren't the African Americans seeking reparations for slavery also seeking reparations for their historical Hollywood depictions, which are much worse than those re: Asian Americans?

Because the former is real suffering & the latter isn't.

Similarly, the non-representation of gay & lesbian people & their relations (which is no worse than negative representations of them) doesn't meet the threshold for "suffering."

Is it unnecessary? This is an empirical question that would require some form of adjudication. In other words, are there ways to achieve the goals of collective stability that would be as effective & efficient but wouldn't cause potential harm elsewhere.

I don't know for sure. But given that China is a sovereign nation, shouldn't the Chinese government make that judgment call about doing what (they think) is best for their citizens & society?

The thing with public policy is that there are no easy answers. It's a "wicked" problem that involves too many variables as well as relative weights & interactions between those variables.

At the end of the day, we don't have privileged access to relevant information about Chinese citizenry & society that their government does. So on what basis can we honestly say they're making a mistake & that we're qualified to correct it?

Here's where the objective morality comes in. Without something that at least resembles it, if not in theory then in practice, this is ultimately a "they said/we said" situation, except for the all-important caveat that they're actually there at ground zero, but we're not.

So what?

No one in the US would be forced to commit murder, r@pe, burglary & assault, etc., but those things are banned, aren't they?

It's kind of hard to tell if you watch the network news every evening, but still...

Although I did say my last comment to you was indeed my last, I will respond since I'm puzzled by your post. I never brought up genocide or gun violence, let alone justified it.

And as I said earlier, you can (freely) say whatever the heck you want, but that doesn't mean all your free expressions preclude cultural
imperialism. It kind of depends on what you say.

I didn't say that there was nothing to prove (at least I don't think so). I was suggesting that you prove something I don't think exists, but since you do, it didn't seem to be an unreasonable request. But that's neither here nor there.

At any rate, you bring up some good points & I'd like the opportunity to address them.

First of all, you are correct to say that I was acting like a gatekeeper & not arguing in good faith. It didn't start out this way when I originally joined MDL, but I guess I got exhausted & disillusioned by all the negative stereotypes I keep hearing about the Chinese government, citizenry, and yes, even culture. This is not to say that China should be immune to scrutiny or criticism, but only that it come from knowledge & understanding as opposed to Western mainstream media & government narratives. In retrospect, I lumped your commentary with all the others (they all start to look the same after a while) & so dismissed it too casually.

At the end of the day, I don't have the answers; but I didn't see anyone else giving any either.

So in light of what you've said, I'm just going to ask some questions & give at least myself some food for thought. If anyone else (including you) has something to add, feel free.

I've already said a lot (too much), so I'm just going to address what I see as the main issue & go from there in a future post.

What I think you may be missing when you bring up "basic values" such as being fair and doing no harm is that you're seeing these values in strictly individualistic terms.

But neither (human) values nor humans exist in a vacuum. They are intrinsically embedded in family, language, history, culture, society, etc. and their relations thereof.

Given the "century of humiliation" in which China was carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey by the American, European ( especially British) & Japanese imperial powers, why shouldn't the Chinese government systematically prioritize social stability & public, collective welfare over private, individual privileges? Media representation isn't necessary (or sufficient) for anyone to pursue the good life, so any harm that may result from restriction of entertainment content seems relatively trivial. At the very least, no one's "inalienable" rights are being trampled on.

Of course, there may be more effective & efficient ways to achieve social welfare & stability, but that doesn't necessarily make the current restrictions irrational or even ill-advised.

Prove objective morality, or kindly STFU!

Final thought...because I've dealt with enough social justice warriors to last a lifetime. Heck, I used to be one, though admittedly not as insufferable & sanctimonious.

But seriously, what the heck do rights have anything to do with it? Are you suggesting that all demographic groups have the basic & innate right to be represented in popular media or something? I'm no constitutional expert or anything, but AFAIK, even Americans are basically restricted to only the rights to "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness." Is there some new constitutional amendment I don't know about re: the right to be on TV?!

Again, this will be my parting thought. Maybe someday when you stop regurgitating "woke" soundbites & actually come up with an original thought of your own, we can resume the conversation. But don't bet on it!

Yes, it's been established that you're a cultural imperialist, & a holier-than-thou one at that.

It's not the same. It's one thing for an American to criticize the States, it's quite another for you to criticize another society with which you have no intimate knowledge & experience. Have you ever even step foot in China? Do you read, write & speak Chinese? Do you know any Chinese history, culture & philosophy? The fact that you call it a "ban" tells me you've never actually read the policy recommendation in its original Chinese (presumably because you don't actually know any Chinese).

Here's the thing; you can respect or criticize whatever the heck you want. But to criticize another culture that you don't even know, let alone understand, makes you a cultural imperialist.

Just curious, what makes you think that you have some sort of privileged access to objective morality? Even assuming such a thing exists, what makes you think that 21st century liberal Western ("woke") gender ideology & identity politics are universally valid across all times in all places?

Until you can prove that your ethical system re: gender ideology & identity is objectively superior & universally valid, you are no different than the Western missionaries & colonizers that took on the "white man's burden" of civiliizing Asian, African & indigenous peoples all around the globe, over the last half millennium or so.

The big distinction is that these Western imperialists didn't know any better, that they thought the white way was the right way, so what's your excuse?

China is a sovereign nation. It doesn't ban everything that is not straight, in entertainment or IRL.

Have you ever stepped foot in China? In Shanghai alone, there are tons of openly gay & lesbian bars, nightclubs, & other hangouts. Do you know any Chinese language, history, culture, etc.? Maybe then, you'd begin to understand the rationale behind the policy recommendations, which are broadly defined & open to interpretation. At any rate, it is hardly a ban.

I currently live & work in NYC. I only watch PBS, but AFAIK, LGBTQIA+ people aren't explicitly "doing it" on national broadcast TV. So Chinese censorship is "dictatorship", but American (& Western) censorship is "democracy?" Gotcha!

What's bitterly & unbearably ironic about your contention is that the West practically invented "cancel culture." Half the American people tries to cancel the other half (& their culture). Just today, Charlie Kirk was literally canceled (gunned down), presumably by someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

God forbid a country as large & densely populated as China, whose history in the last half millennium has been defined by war & famine, not to mention invasion, exploitation & colonization by these "free" Western democracies for which you assume moral superiority prioritize social stability over 21st century liberal ("woke") Western gender politics & ideology (with which half the West vehemently if not violently oppose).

For the record, I am not a Chinese citizen, but an international C-drama fan...only I try not to be ethnocentric, xenophobic, let alone culturally imperialistic in my fandom.

I also don't suffer from so much delusions of grandeur to imagine that my personally perceived entertainment value carries more weight than the historical burdens of one of the oldest civilizations on earth.

You're not doing ZLY any favors with your trolling.

The original title in Chinese is actually quite poetic.

But many international fans may not know or understand the Chinese idiom on which it is based.