"Violent" Video Games To Be Banned In Venezuela 420
An anonymous reader writes "The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches has decided to ban 'violent' video games because they 'promote violence and can alter the behavior of children.' The new legislation in Venezuela says, 'The violence found in video games is translated into the real world.' This new law affects people who sell, 'use,' produce, import and distribute these games. Video games as a whole have been labeled as 'a consequence of savage capitalism' by PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), which is the political party led by Hugo Chavez. Days before this law was approved by the National Assembly, Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.' Just today the AFP released a report showing Caracas as the second most violent city on the planet — even more violent than Baghdad. I guess all those violent gangs in Venezuela are addicted to video games."
Ah I get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Crush the thought of dissent before they spill out into the streets. Actually shouldn't be promoting the use of violent video games to keep his citizens under control?
Egoism, Individualism and Violence. (Score:3, Interesting)
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.'
Because we all know what a danger Individualism is.
About the Editorializing (Score:4, Interesting)
The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches has decided to ban 'violent' video games because they 'promote violence and can alter the behavior of children.'
Just because a country purchases utilities of force says nothing. What they do with them says everything. If a country employs them for their own protection from genuine threats, there is nothing wrong with them building or purchasing automat kalashnikovs.
As for the video games promoting violence and altering the behavior of children, I do not believe this has been scientifically proved or disproved. And it may be hard if not impossible to do. I would recommend, when dealing with a populace, that you stick to common sense like 'acts of violence have been around long before video games' and point out that there is no statistical correlation between increased violence and increased violence in video games.
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.'
Right, because it would be horrible if your kids got video games that made them think. We're dealing with politicians, not the populace here. I feel horrible for Venezuelan gamers but I wonder if this doesn't have to do more with the feelings that games convey to people more so than the violence. I can't help but think that CoD and other games that tell the stories of men who fought and died to stop fascists like Hitler and Mussolini must make other dictators afraid of that sense of freedom being conveyed -- and the violence to stop them being employed! It's possible this ban is more so a significance of the importance of games as a cultural medium. That might be reaching a bit far but I would guess there's some truth to it. Probably just as simple as Chavez trying to appeal to the older generations for support and using video games as a scapegoat.
The yo-yo is a weapon (Score:4, Interesting)
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo
But the yo-yo is a weapon: Inventors of the yo-yo [about.com]
In the Philippines, the yo-yo was a weapon for over 400 hundred years. Their version was large with sharp edges and studs and attached to thick twenty-foot ropes for flinging at enemies or prey.
An age-old argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Do violent video games make kids more violent? Well, I never used to think so until my 6 year old started playing them. Almost immediately we noticed a change in his behavior and an increase in his aggressiveness. I fought it for a long time because I have been playing violent games since Doom and Quake and I totally didn't want to believe it...plus, I had always wanted my son to be able to play those games with me. So, after many arguments with my wife, and after strict guidance from his pediatrician, I caved and we put up the games. he HATED it but, I must admit, the temper tantrums ceased and he became a much more calm and respectful kid.
I know what you are thinking: "He stopped because he was playing too many games in general". No, actually we only cut out the violent games. He still plays the games that, whoever that legal group is that decides what is ok for kids to play, say it's ok for him to play. It sucks because I never wanted to be that guy, but here I am. I guess I need to hang up my Logitech Mouseman and get a trackball because I'm certainly only months away from carpal tunnel.
FML
Re:awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:2, Interesting)
No. Your excuses are stupid.
Venezeula is much more tightly controlled. In order for your lame analogy to
work, it would have to be Bush or Obama that is encouraging the production of
pornography. The fact that such activity exists in America (or any other normal
democracy) is a reflection of the inherent CHAOS of a truely free society. People
at large are free to engage in conflicting activities.
You can have as many pornographers as you have anti-porn crusaders.
Either and both can thrive without government encouragement or interference.
Chavez is the pimp in this case. Neither Bush nor Obama are.
Re:banning make hulk smash! (Score:2, Interesting)
I like Americans and have seen more of the place than most natives, but your government is evil. For a true account of recent Venezuelan history please watch the video link I give with this comment. This amazing fly on the wall documentary was made by an Irish TV crew that happened to be in the presidential palace at the time of the American backed coup and filmed it for future folks to see the truth.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144
The most dangerous form of violence Venezuela faces is from the USA. History shows how many have died on this earth due to the policies of the US military, political, and industrial hegemony.
Mark Wood. Shropshire. England.
Re:Who tagged this "Fascism"? (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to assume that the left-wing dictators pretended to be left-wing merely as a tool of control, allowing them to be as selfish as they wanted, filling the Swiss bank account while pretending to have the people's interests at heart.
But having read a rather long (and definitely unsympathetic) biography of Stalin [amazon.com], I'm no longer so sure. I think many of them really believe in what they are doing, and are genuinely convinced that it is for the best.
For example, in the early years of WW2, Hitler broke his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia. Initially, this invasion was going very well for the Germans, and Stalin became convinced that the war was lost. He went to his dacha outside the city, and for a few days, none of his henchmen dared to give any orders because they couldn't run them past the big man. Eventually, the henchmen decided to go to Stalin's house.
I think this moment of vulnerability, in front of the men who could destroy him and had reason to do so, gives a lot of insight into the mind of Stalin. History remembers a monster, and of course this is correct, but nevertheless he was a rational man who believed he was doing the right thing for the USSR. When things went badly, he felt guilty for failing the people. He almost destroyed himself because of it.
Is this the action of a selfish man, considering only himself? I think not. Stalin's actions are entirely explained by the Marxist religion. In his mind, he did act for the people. He did help them! He freed them from the capitalists, the bourgeois and the imperialists. The mass executions, the war and the starvation were all necessary to achieve that end. Stalin was exactly what he claimed to be: a truly left-wing dictator.
Re:citation needed (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez#Ch.C3.A1vez_and_the_media [wikipedia.org]
Now I know you're saying "that just wikipedia" but maybe read the cites. Or do a google search. Educate your self. You might find that the US government has done far worse in acting out foreign policy goals... And publicly acknowledged it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change [wikipedia.org]. Almost as bad as the Brits.
But I understand your need to deny anything that the US does that could be construed as bad since this might force you to take personal responsibility for your own life.
Power... (Score:1, Interesting)
"Any sufficiently far-left philosophy is indistinguishable from a far-right philosophy."
That is because both philosophy is driven to its extreme by the same kind of person. Every society has a minority of people who seek power over everyone else, ultimately for their own gain. That has been true throughout human history and around the world. This minority's core psychology is to be very deeply driven to seek power over others, so they can decide for others and so gain from having such power over others.
The question then becomes why are they so driven? What is it in their psychology that makes them so driven to seek power over others?. The answer is a disproportionate number of the people who fight to the top in politics have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Politics is a very competitive environment and a narcissist has a competitive advantage in such a competitive environment, so they naturally fight and manipulate their way to the top, at the expense of others. So Politics acts like a selection process filtering out non-narcissists so you end up with a dominance of narcissists. The more dominant the narcissists become in a party the worse they become. Narcissists lack empathy to others and as a result they have no problem lying to people to gets what they want. They even consider themselves better that other people for being able to con overly trusting people.
Here's two examples quotes from a deeply NPD person who has had power for many years. They are quotes from Benito Mussolini
(1) He wished to gain favor with Hitler and so when talking about his own people, he said:
"I shall require a few thousand dead soldiers in order to secure my place as a belligerent leader - later, at the conference table"
(2) When told his people were starting to stave and the ratios of food per person were getting low, he said:
"I tell you that around spring time, the ratios will be even less and this delights me, because we will finally see signs of suffering, on the faces of Italian people, which will be valuable to us around the peace table."
The thing with HPD's in such power is they don't usually want people to die. The point is they don't care if they live or die. They are thinking only about how the deaths of others affects them. How does it change their fortunes. How does it affect their position of power. How does it change how others think about them. They are thinking of themselves, how they gain. Hence they are truly and deeply Narcissistic.
A Narcissistic is created by an intense desire to never again be dominated by others the way they were dominated and dictated to when they were a child. They are ultimately driven by that fear, but they would never admit that fear. Most would give any excuse other than admit their fear, because by admitting their fear, they fear they show weakness, which risks (they think) that others will exploit that sign of weakness to try to dominate them again. Its why politicians alway feel compelled to talk of strength yet behind so much of what they do, they actually show signs they are driven to defend against the fear of someone else gaining power over them.
This is also why banning violent video games will not work. The violence in society is created by NPD's (and the even more extreme ASPD's, who thankfully (for us all) they are usually self destructive people so they don't (often) gain positions of power. ASPD people are too busy being angry at the world and having no empathy towards others. They can be thought of as extreme NPD's caused by the most extreme forms of abuse. They have gone beyond NPD into being ASPD).
Once you learn to see its NPD and ASPD behavior behind violence in society, its easy to explain the violence. For example, imagine trying to tell an NPD to their face and in from of others that they are a coward. Imagine the hostility of their reaction as they seek to prove to you they are not a coward ... as they most likely try to beat you senseless. Of course, politicians have gained such po
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, that's a translation of what Chavez said, rather than what he actually said. From the context, I wouldn't be surprised if the word he actually used has negative connotations similar to "loner," "isolation," and "exile" have to us.
Re:citation needed (Score:1, Interesting)
I could literally spend all night typing here. Do ask if you're interested; there's a lot of misinformation going around because Chavez has succeeded in pushing an image of Venezuela being a socialist paradise to left-leaning people all across the world. And it's all bullshit: Chavez has not a bit of socialism in him. His political movement is an authoritarian personalism; it pretends to be nationalism, but the blindly worshipped figure of our nation is whatever Chavez himself whims it to be on any given day/week/month/campaign.
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. In a free society, people are free to be as immoral as they want, as long as they don't infringe upon somebody else's rights
Does not compute.
I'm saying that a government that has no power other than to protect human rights, but that does a good job protecting human rights
Define human rights. If you say "not being fucked over by the megacorps" and "managing to live a decent life even if you're poor", then you're a socialist. If you say "not having the government meddle with my business" and "not having to pay most of my hard-earned paycheck to support those who didn't earn it" then you're a capitalist (of a certain kind).
There are more answers for Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.
[...] has no 'favors' to sell to corporations (the excesses of capitalism), and no means of seizing property for 'the state' (the excesses of socialism). The biggest reason our senators and executives are corrupt is because we've foolishly let them have more and more power to be corrupt WITH.
It seems to me you're making a case against corruption, and I agree - corruption is bad. But if you're implying that any kind of taxes (if that's what you mean by seizing property), or pro-business laws (like the existence of corporations, intellectual property, trade secrets and so forth) are inherently wrong, I disagree. Basically, I can't see a prosperous country existing without those.
Personally, my belief is that a system of government that gives maximum freedom, while protecting basic human rights (life, property, speech, etc.), will inevitably lead to capitalism, because that's the economic structure that is inherent in free choice
Kinda depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean a well-regulated free market economy that's not owned by special interest groups, I agree.
Intresting choice of words (Score:3, Interesting)
Sufficiently free society.
Sufficient as far as I know means something like good enough. Not compleet. My income is sufficient to live on does not mean I am rich or I am without money worries. A diet that is suffcient to survive on would hardly be called optimal.
So just how free should society be? Completly free?
One of the problems in the world is that we wants simple things, left/right, while politics tend to be very complex. Take Cuba, you had a system before Castro that had the majority of the public living in oppression, and after Castro, the exact same thing. Of course, the people who had it good before are complaing that now it is so much worse. Well duh!
That is what is fuels a lot of the violence in Iraq. You had a minority who controlled the country who suddenly had to give it all up and be ruled by the people they previously controlled. That sets bad blood. So the freedom of one means the restraint of another.
South American countries can be divided into two groups, those that are friendly to the US and can kill as many people as they want, with US backing and those that are not friendly to the US and get slammed for building hospitals.
Chavez is doing EXACTLY the same thing as the US has been trying to and a lot of european countries as well. So why does Chavez get so much more flak?
Why the mentioning of weapon purchases? The US spends far more on killing tech and its senators are trying for the same laws. Where is the link? Oh, there isn't one.
Chavez is running a country where the rich used to have their way completly. Now things changed and guess what, the rich don't like it and the US don't like it that a source of oil is no longer run by people who like them. It makes any reporting by any US citizen on Chavez in my opinion extremely suspect and this article is just a confimation of my susipicions.
Yes this law is stupid, but the reporting on it is so biased that its simpler message is lost in the propoganda.