China Bans Games That "Glorify Gangsters' Lives" 172
As we discussed in June, China has been working on plans to impose further restrictions on the games that can be sold or publicized within its borders. The Chinese government has now begun implementing those plans, starting with games that involve gangs, saying, "These games encourage people to deceive, loot and kill, and glorify gangsters' lives. It has a bad influence on youngsters." According to a Xinhua news agency, "The ministry ordered its law enforcement bodies to step up oversight and harshly punish those sites that continue to run such games."
Well... (Score:1, Interesting)
Good (2) (Score:5, Interesting)
Law as a side-effect of the one-child policy? (Score:2, Interesting)
This law possibly shows that while China isn't a representative democracy, it is being overly influenced by the will of the older generation as a result of the one-child policy. In all societies, those in power (whether that's economical, political and/or other) makes the rules. And these particular laws are possibly meant to appease the older generation, less familiar with computer games (or adversely affected by these laws).
But not only does the older generation have the status/power/money in China (as in most countries), they also make up a larger proportion of the population than comparable Western countries, as a direct result of the one-child policy. In particular, it'd be interesting to see the societal effects of the one-child policy both now and as it ends and compare it with the rise of the baby boomer generation post-WII.
Re:Well... (Score:1, Interesting)
"Presumably games that glorify state-sponsored violence, corruption and other crimes will be OK for the Chinese government."
The Chinese government's thinking can be summarized as, suppress any expression of ideas which shows anyone opposing the views and rules of the people in power.
Gangsters oppose the law and the law is a set of rules decreed by the government that everyone must follow. In other words, the government is afraid of anyone showing any sign or even view glorifying people opposing the rules laid down by the people in power. They wish to maintain absolute power and fear anyone else taking power from them.
Ironically exactly the same thinking as every political party in every country, its just some countries leaders struggle to impose their will as much as China's government is able to do. Because the political systems in some countries (usually) prevents most political leaders gaining such absolute power.
All political moves are ultimately aimed at a battle for gaining and maintaining power over people. Its their core thinking regardless of which party or country they are in. They are all ultimately seeking power over everyone else.
The question then becomes why are some people so deeply driven to seek and gain power over others for so much of their lives and why are they so fearful of loosing power? ... something is deeply driving them psychologically to behave this way. The answer to that question is the one thing they would never admit and would always attempt to use any excuse to cover up their real reason for behaving this way. The answer why they need power is they fear being powerless like they were when they were young. They fear anyone ever having power over them like they suffered when they were young. Its a fear of an injustice that is burned into them and drives them on, resulting in them behaving in a self-centered narcissistic personality disordered way. Which is exactly why they show so little empathy to others. A behavior that is very common to *high up* politicians in every country simply because narcissistic behavior provides a competitive advantage in highly competitive environments like the political battle for power, so they narcissistic people tend to fight to the top in power.
*BZZZT* Wrong answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, last I've seen an actual study of healthcare costs, the smokers and the obese actually pay for everyone else's healthcare. Yeah, they get sick earlier, but that's actually the point. They die quicker than they'd get to use their contribution to healthcare, and in many cases to the pension fund too.
Smokers get some cancer, get some chemotherapy or radiotherapy for months or a couple of years tops, then they die. End of expense, and it wasn't even the most expensive medication to start with.
They and the obese, occasionally get a heart attack or stroke, a lot just die right there. End of story, no medical expenses.
Etc.
And an obese smoker, now that's someone who really gets shafted out of their contribution to that universal healthcare and is paying a pension contribution for nothing.
The ones who actually cost healthcare a lot more money than they contributed, are those who live until 90 years old, and were on expensive anti-Alzheimer's medication or the like ever since they were 65.
So please spare me the BS pretense that you somehow subsidize those. They're the ones who subsidize you. And it already is a non-existent moral ground to complain about society's money going to them, when really nobody else actually gives them a buck. But it's already surrealistic to complain about paying money for them, when actually it's them paying your medical cares. Have a bit of decency, will ya?
China has reached the 1930s! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles" as follows:
Re:Elections in China (Score:1, Interesting)
> Then the two systems will start to look very similar :).
Ah, moral relativism, how sweet it is. Except: nothing really stops a third party from emerging in the USA. Parties can and do die. (Hint: the Republicans weren't around at the founding of the Republic.) Given enough support from people, there could easily be a third party. Only thing, it's difficult to start from scratch in multiple states, and both parties have room for lots of different opinions.
OTOH in China, I doubt they'd allow MoveOn or the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to become a special interest group within the Chinese Communist Party.
So please - equating the American and Chinese systems is just plain stupid. If you think they're even remotely similar, go spend some time with both and see for yourself.