5694835
story
Comments: 420 +- Games: "Violent" Video Games To Be Banned In Venezuela on Thursday August 27, @02:22PM
Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday August 27, @02:22PM
from the clearly-the-root-of-their-problems dept.
from the clearly-the-root-of-their-problems dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccensorship.gif); width:44px; height:55px;
censorship
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicentertainment.gif); width:62px; height:44px;
entertainment
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgames.gif); width:68px; height:77px;
games
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."
Related Stories
Submission: 'Violent' videogames to be banned in Venezuela. by Anonymous Coward
It is sweet to let the mind unbend on occasion.
-- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Individualism? Oh, no!
Re: (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:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sufficiently far-left philosophy is indistinguishable from a far-right philosophy.
The reverse is also true.
Parent
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (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 agre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What people's rights are, are derived from one's morals, metaphysics and ideology. Some people believe that the right to, for example, move freely is more important than property rights. Some believe that beaches can be owned, some can't. Some also believe that children belong to their parents, others don't.
If everyone shared a consistent view of what "rights" were, then there wouldn't be a problem. But any political theory that relies on a non-existent consensus and an equally non-existent standard of huma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ONLY example of a truly oppressive "right-wing" government is ... () the national socialist party of Germany.
The Nazis were't socialist and neither was Hitler. And it's amusing that you try to equate them as being left-wing.
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:4, Informative)
More than any other country, Germany â" Nazi Germany â" then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.
The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn't look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn't become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.
I emphasized the important parts bold. The part in italics isn't true. The autobahn was mainly built with forced labor. That's why unemployment sank. Corporate profits boomed (later on) because of slave labor and war (see IG Farben for example).
You may also notice, that socialism != stalinism. You may also find this [wikipedia.org] interesting.
Parent
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals ... while eliminating individualism. That's a contradiction. How does the state "get out of the way" AND destroy personal liberty ?
Take a look at the US and see how they do it. By granting enterpreneurs the ability to screw everybody else for their own gain (see: copyright, patents), they manage to both incentive the free enterprise of individuals *and* destroy personal liberties. Take it just a bit farther and you get corporatism first, then fascism, two extreme right-wing philosophies which you somehow missed in your effort to Godwin the discussion.
Now, I'm a right-wing capitalist, what in the US would be called a "libertarian" I believe, but seriously: stop pretending only one side of the political spectrum holds a monopoly over stupidity, you aren't helping your own credibility by doing so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just wondering ...
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals ... while eliminating individualism.
I suppose that you never heard of Augusto Pinochét? On September 11th 1973 he lead a bloody coup against the elected government of Chile and started a bloody oppression of the Chilean people while liberalising trade to allow the rich and powerful to become even more rich and powerful. At the time he got a lot of support by famous monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, who conveniently ignored his atrocities.
banning make hulk smash! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe banning violence would help to cut down on the violence in that country.
Piensas de los niños! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean that this collectivism should be enforced by law?
European culture is more collectivist too, but the Europeans realize that this cultural trait doesn't need to be enshrined in law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must realize that Latin American countries are far more collectivist.
No, we aren't. Don't generalize the whole population of Latin America based on what the Supreme Idiot of the Venezuelan Republic does or says.
awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.'
What the hell does this have to do with the actually meat of the issue? NOTHING. Nice troll.
Re:awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent insightful. As bad as Hugo is this summary is stupid. You could write a story in the same style about the US, and how they are the source of much pornography but is still trying to outlaw or severly restrict. Just pure trolling.
Please critize Venzuela on sound ground. It is not that hard.
Parent
Re:awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think criticizing Venezuela for hypocrisy, as the summary did, is just fine.
Just because the same criticism is also valid for the US doesn't make it any less valid elsewhere.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Your excuses are stupid.
No, you're a big stupid head!
Seriously, there's no need for name calling or putting down people. Your point is (somewhat) valid, you only weaken your position with derogatory remarks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ridiculous part about that line is that Venezuela spends significantly less on defense spending than Colombia, it's oft-foe. And the "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Jack Thompson moved to Venusuela? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe if there were MORE violent videogames there, there wouldn't be so much violence. In the US, the most violent places are the slums, places where the folks living there can't afford videogames.
Violent crime has dropped in the US since videogames were invented.
OTOH I played Quake with my daughters on our home network when they were teenagers, and my youngest (now 22) tried to beat the hell out of my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago. Maybe Quake is responsible? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hehe. Sources would be nice.
Yeah, the story about having daughters and a girlfriend is convincing but I'd like to see some solid evidence of a /.er having life, for once.
Wikipedia or GTFO
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't, you disgusting troll. My GF's 44 years old, twice my daughter's age. Now get back under your goddamned bridge.
banning video games.. (Score:5, Insightful)
was never about actually reducing crime, it is about enforcing morality on others and controlling what media people are allowed to consume.
GTA Caracas (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Oh please (Score:5, Informative)
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
Venezuela's defense spending is just over $2B/year. Their oft-foe, Colombia, spends about $6B/year. And the US spends over $400B/year.
And, FYI, your "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Just today the AFP released a report showing Caracas as the second most violent city on the planet -- even more violent than Baghdad.
Didn't bother to mention that New Orleans came in right after Caracas, with only one less murder per 100,000 people, did you? Or that Caracas's murder rate fell dramatically since their last survey. Skew much?
Parent is one of Slashdot's most biased posts (Score:4, Informative)
Venezuela's defense spending is just over $2B/year. Their oft-foe, Colombia, spends about $6B/year.
Except that Colombia faces a bitter civil war. What next, will you compare with Israel?
And the US spends over $400B/year.
No, you will settle for the US, which has 43 times the GDP.
And, FYI, your "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Huh? Care to elaborate?
Didn't bother to mention that New Orleans came in right after Caracas, with only one less murder per 100,000 people, did you?
Maybe because such a comparison would be a textbook example of bias - comparing the "murder capital" of country A with the capital and largest city of country B? If you wanted a faint hope of impartiality, you would have compared Caracas with Washington, DC, or with a large and important US city such as New York.
Or that Caracas's murder rate fell dramatically since their last survey.
Sources? Comparison to previous years? (A comparison of two years is a really, really lousy way to establish a trend)
Parent
So... (Score:2)
... how's life in beautiful war-torn Venezuela?
Please get Jack Thomson to back this in public! (Score:3)
That way Fox News will be forced to calling him a socialist supporter of Hugo Chavez and close one of the last places that man can get any airtime.
Who tagged this "Fascism"? (Score:3, Funny)
He is also the democratically elected leader of his country.
Re:Who tagged this "Fascism"? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he is a champion of himself and gives a damn about anyone else.
Parent
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.
Parent
Somebody who knows the score tagged it "fascism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler was also a champion of workers' and farmers' rights and was democratically elected, undeniably influenced (negatively) by Marx, and a socialist to the core. The "S" in NSDAP stood for socialist, you know. Here's a pop quiz. Can you briefly state the difference between fascist and socialist (minus any hyperbolae)? Hint: it's a trick question.
As for "bane to American-style capitalist corporations", I simply think that Chavez simply favors his own corporations, state run or in cahoots with the state, as is the case with both socialism and fascism.
Parent
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
Are Americans being ethnocentric? (Score:4, Funny)
In America," Obama says, "we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations."
- Barack Obama,
Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States should take the side of the oppressed there, not shake hands with CastroLite.
Because the United States has such a great track record of installing democracy and non-oppressive leaders in foreign nations....
Why can't we leave others alone and worry about problems in our own country?
Parent
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the United States has such a great track record of installing democracy and non-oppressive leaders in foreign nations....
Ever heard of Germany or Japan?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot Poland.
Parent
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:5, Insightful)
The people of Germany and Japan did this and succeeded DESPITE US interference, not because of it.
They wanted it to begin with and we opened the door for them. This is very different than the too many to mention examples of where the US meddled and it was not wanted and nothing changed, and in a few cases got worse.
Remember... Sadam was installed by the US as well :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this is the most scary part
, 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 how -terrible- individualism is. But really when you look at oppressive regimes you see the death of individualism as a key characteristic. This just proved what most people knew: Chavez is a power-hungry dictator.
Re:Gotta love the straight-faced hypocrite (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess I live outside of "civilization." Don't worry, I'm just as happy having a right to self-defense.
Parent