Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Entertainment Games

"Violent" Video Games To Be Banned In Venezuela 420

Posted by Soulskill
from the clearly-the-root-of-their-problems dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Violent" Video Games To Be Banned In Venezuela

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:26PM (#29221227)

    Individualism? Oh, no!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FourthAge (1377519)

      A socialist country passes a law that curtails individual liberty for the greater good?

      Oh my God how did this happen! The Left are the good guys aren't they? Clearly Chavez has become right-wing.

      • by Millennium (2451) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @04:25PM (#29222311) Homepage

        Any sufficiently far-left philosophy is indistinguishable from a far-right philosophy.
        The reverse is also true.

        • by Dragonslicer (991472) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @04:40PM (#29222599)
          Any sufficiently authoritarian government acting in the name of socialism is indistinguishable from an equally authoritarian government acting in the name of capitalism. Trying to eliminate individualism and personal liberty is the mark of authoritarianism, not socialism.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Toonol (1057698)
            Not quite a catchy as the GP, but probably more accurate. I'd also throw in that in a sufficiently free society, the capitalistic/socialist tendencies of the government become irrelevant.
            • 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)

      by timeOday (582209)

      Individualism? Oh, no!

      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.

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:26PM (#29221233)

    Maybe banning violence would help to cut down on the violence in that country.

  • Ah I get it... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mashiki (184564) <[mashiki] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:27PM (#29221247) Homepage

    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?

  • by Tekfactory (937086) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:28PM (#29221285) Homepage

    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.

    • Individualism interferes with your proper sense of duty to do whatever El Jefe tells you to.

    • You must realize that Latin American countries are far more collectivist. Our notions of individual rights (which are eroding today even here in the USA) aren't as held there as they are here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Entropius (188861)

        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)

        by Draek (916851)

        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.

    • by hurfy (735314)

      "Because we all know what a danger Individualism is."

      Certainly

      And the yo-yo and trompo are the perfect solution because they...err...ummm...ahhhh....well, nothing brings the community together like a good yo-yo.

      Perhaps the plan is to only allow one yo-yo and one top per 10 kids?

      (neither the spell-checker nor myself knew what trompo was without a little help)

  • "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.

    • by Carewolf (581105) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:44PM (#29221551) Homepage

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jedidiah (1196)

        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 enco

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Em Emalb (452530)

          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.

      • by Entropius (188861) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @04:06PM (#29221953)

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rei (128717)

      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.

      • Venezuela isn't attempting to crush narcoterrorists(and whatever you might think about the actual legalization of drugs, FARC are narcoterrorists) in a low-key civil war across the country. Instead it's supporting said assholes to the detriment of it's neighbor.
    • Militarization demands increased violence in at least some segment of the population. Basically, it's not that Chavez opposes violence, it's that he opposes non-state-sanctioned violence. Boot camp doesn't turn you into a pacifist, and a more placid people are more easily ruled.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:30PM (#29221307) Homepage Journal

    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? ;)

  • by wizardforce (1005805) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:30PM (#29221311) Journal

    was never about actually reducing crime, it is about enforcing morality on others and controlling what media people are allowed to consume.

    • yup. If they could make a video game that somehow was a propaganda vehicle for Chavez then they would allow it. This has more to do with the fact that video games have more of a anti-communist and pro freedom and thinking point of view. Also I bet he doesn't want to see anything that promotes a pro-American view of history (Rambo, anyone?)

      If they had the know how to build a video game where Hugo Chavez conquers the fat capitalists it would be legal. Apparently they don't have programmers in Venezuela.

    • Not about reducing? That depends on the intent and motive... whether it does or not is the motive-ignoring debate.

      Enforcing morality? Somehow, I doubt that Chavez is interested in "enforcing morality." He's so moral himself.

  • GTA Caracas (Score:3, Funny)

    by Atomm (945911) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:31PM (#29221317) Homepage
    You heard it here first!
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:31PM (#29221331) Journal

    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.

      • by Rei (128717)

        Wow, a government accused of (and denying) providing aid insurgents within its enemies' borders!

        Thank God we'd never do anything like that...

    • I do not believe this has been scientifically proved or disproved.

      Of course their behavior is affected. Just look at how the politics of an adult is driven by what they see on the TV over and over. They never vote, or even discuss beyond what's being spoon fed to them. Propaganda works, whether it's intentional or not. "The Game" can be a very useful tool.

    • by umghhh (965931)
      as for statistics - I heard on the radio the other day that police officers union here (Germany) issued a report on the issue. Apparently they claim that there is restrictions do not do any good. They admit however that among young skewed shooters and murderers in Germany in recent years majority if not all played violent guys and did it to such extent that they apparently lost it.

      I guess there is no easy way and the only thing simple prohibition is likely to achieve is black market and the best prevention

  • Oh please (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rei (128717) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:33PM (#29221349) Homepage

    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?

    • by JOrgePeixoto (853808) on Friday August 28, 2009 @04:39AM (#29228171) Journal

      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)

  • ... how's life in beautiful war-torn Venezuela?

  • Quit copying Brazil!
  • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:42PM (#29221503)

    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.

  • They obviously missed The substitute 2. Otherwise they would have banned those dangerous thing too.

    That said I miss mine. Can anyone recommend a good brand? yotech, bumblebee, other?
  • by Spy Handler (822350) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:49PM (#29221621) Homepage Journal
    The people doing this are the United Socialist Party. Hugo Chavez is a champion of workers' rights, a bane to American-style capitalist corporations, heavily influenced by Marx, and a socialist to the core.

    He is also the democratically elected leader of his country.
    • Do you live in a world in which Venn diagrams never overlap? Do your sets lack the difference operation, because it always returns the empty set? I would like to hear more about your insights into mathematics.

      • I would just like to add that I live in a world where the definitions of "difference" and "intersection" are swapped.

        D'oh.

    • by schnikies79 (788746) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:57PM (#29221751)

      No, he is a champion of himself and gives a damn about anyone else.

      • by FourthAge (1377519) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @05:02PM (#29222991) Journal

        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.

        "There, sitting nervously in an armchair, was a 'thinner... haggard... gloomy' Stalin. When he saw the seven or so Politburo members entering, Stalin 'turned to stone'... he looked at them searchingly and asked: 'Why've you come?'

        "Stalin 'looked alert, somewhat strange', recalled Mikoyan, 'and his question was no less strange. Actually he should have summoned us himself. I had no doubt: he decided we had arrived to arrest him.'...

        "'We're asking you to come back to work...'

        "'Yes but think about it,' answered Stalin. 'Can I live up to the people's hopes any more? Can I lead the country to final victory? There may be more deserving candidates.'"

        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.

    • by fnj (64210) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @06:06PM (#29223893)

      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.

  • by lalena (1221394) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:49PM (#29221629) Homepage

    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.

  • 100,000 AK-103's

    . . . they're planning a "violent video games for guns" exchange.

    Hell, an AK-103? Where do I trade my games in?

  • An age-old argument (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stenchwarrior (1335051) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @03:57PM (#29221769)

    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

    • There are many ways to solve conflicts. Violence is one way. Its no surprise that when shown primarily one way of solving conflicts, they will chose that option. Plus, there are many levels of violence and age groups. While Halo might be a bit too much for a 6 year old, my guess is an 8 or 9 year old would be able to handle it fine. Similarly, other games that use violence as the primary means of conflict resolution but don't use it exclusively such as RPGs would be perfectly fine, even ones with slight blo
  • What even "Red Alert III?" Say it ain't so Hugo, say it ain't so.

    On the plus side, these kinds of Social Controls never work, and will ultimately lead to the collapse of the Venezualan state. It's akin to the Soviet Union outlawing "decadent Western culture," and shows Hugo Chavez to be the petty tin-plated tyrant his critics had always painted him as.

  • A Trompo is a toy popular in Latin America much like a top. Its name can vary between countries. In Spain it is known as "Peonza". Trompos have a pear-shaped body and are usually made of wood, although new resins and strong plastic materials have also been used.

    The trompo seen in this picture is exactly like a top which has been made in Sasebo, Japan for hundreds of years. It is believed that the tops used in Mexico were brought over from Japan. In Japan the name for a top is called a Koma. Most cities in Japan have a particular design for their koma.

    A trompo has a button-shaped tip on top, usually bigger than the tip on which trompo spins, and generally made of the same material as the rest of the body. This tip exists so that the trompo can spin on the metal-made tip when thrown.

    from you know where [wikipedia.org]

    Hmm, you learn something new every day. I've been playing with tops (not the kinds you spin with your thumb and finger, but wrap a string around and chuck) for a long time and always thought that they were "tops", not trompo or koma.

    The more you know! {insert rainbow graphic and chimes}

    P.S. I played with tops (trompo), yo-yo's, and 'the nintendo' and I only turned out semi-egotistical, semi-individualistic, and semi-violent. Maybe there is something to this 'the nintendo' that turns

  • let's see if violent crime drops.

    Yes, it would only be corrollary, but interesting to note.

  • by mc6809e (214243) on Thursday August 27, 2009 @06:49PM (#29224401)

    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

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...