Slashdot Mirror


China Bans Games That "Glorify Gangsters' Lives"

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."

172 comments

  1. Well... by nagnamer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I guess it's better than just saying games are not ok and letting everyone buy them... Like with cigarettes. Yeah, smoking kills you. Smoking kills other people. Cigarettes are genocide machines. So why the fuck do you allow people to sell them in the first place?!

    --
    Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    1. Re:Well... by Carlos+Matesanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taxes. Huge amounts.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymos+Noel+Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumably games that glorify state-sponsored violence, corruption and other crimes will be OK for the Chinese government. So not all is lost!

    3. Re:Well... by migla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if cigarette taxes are the reason to still allow cigarettes in Sweden, for example. I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.

      The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    4. Re:Well... by Carlos+Matesanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I cannot be sure of it, but it seems plausible to me. We've got universal healthcare here in Spain too but considering how much % of the price of the box goes to taxes, and considering that the real percent of smokers who actually develop cancer...
      Of course the angry-smokers factor is also a big one.
      But that's enought off-topic, baning videogames is pretty stupid and useless.

    5. Re:Well... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      In hopes that one of those cigarettes will kill you.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smokers die much younger than non-smokers - so they don't cost much in pensions, which are otherwise an enormously expensive cost for society. Sure, society has to pay for smoker's healthcare, but if they lived to an old age we'd have to pay for pensions AND geriatric healthcare.

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarettes are genocide machines? To say this implies that A) It's targeting one group of people. (disclaimer: I'm American, i know stats for America, I think Europe and the rest of the world fall along the same lines because these are multinational corporations and their advertising strategies are similar regardless of country) In the US blacks are less likely to smoke than whites. So it's not a racial thing. The poor are more likely to smoke, but not overwhelmingly so, certainly not enough to declare it a genocide on the poor. And B) That cigarettes are gaurenteed to kill. In fact, as a white American male smoker (again, i apologize but these are the stats I know) I only have an 8% chance of dying from lung cancer (based on CDC data for roughly the last decade). Not exactly a death sentence. On the other hand, Smokers are half as likely to suffer from alzheimers and parkinsons. Cigarettes are proven to stimulate the mind.

      To compare cigarettes to genocide is shameful. It trivializes actual genocides, the kind with mass graves and missing generations.

      Obesity is a far bigger killer than cigarettes (especially in america where we seem to almost revel in gluttony.) Is a hamburger an instrument of genocide?

      -rumsintheblood@yahoo.com (my network wont let me creat an account)

    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is a hamburger an instrument of genocide?

      Ask any cow you insensitive bastard.

      eat mor chikin! MOOOOoooo!!!

    10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.

      There's also a big lobby behind cigarettes. I'd say relatively small "favours" and "benefits" for various politicians trump any cost for society or protesters in the outcome of laws. Most politicians care more about their own wealth than society. Peace of mind is cheap.

    11. Re:Well... by matria · · Score: 1

      Ok, so don't call it "genocide". What do you call something that is deliberately pushed that is known to kill hundreds of thousands of a given species every year?

      And when major tobacco exporting country `US` threatens major auto export country `JP` that if `JP` takes steps to reduce their tobacco consumption, then `US` will retaliate by limiting the import of cars from `JP`, knowing that this will cause the premature death of hundreds of thousands of `JP` citizens, I'd call that genocide. If it's for greed rather than socio/politico/religious reasons, it's still genocide.

    12. Re:Well... by Jurily · · Score: 1

      But that's enought off-topic, baning videogames is pretty stupid and useless.

      I'm all for it. But only if they start showing porn instead of action movies, too.

    13. Re:Well... by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Hi, light smoker here.

      Smokers pay 11 billion pounds a year in taxes in the UK. They cost the health service around 5 billion. We're subsidising you to the tune of 6 billion pounds a year.

      STFU now.

    14. Re:Well... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      "I guess it's better than just saying games are not ok and letting everyone buy them... Like with cigarettes. Yeah, smoking kills you. Smoking kills other people. Cigarettes are genocide machines. So why the fuck do you allow people to sell them in the first place?!"

      Are you saying that these sorts of games "kill you", "kill other people" and are "genocide machines"? Aside from your moronic argument that harmful things ought to be against the law (McDonalds, anyone?), what are you trying to prove here? There is not one lick of evidence that violent video games cause real world harm. There may be a certain amount of (questionable) evidence the show correlation between real world violence and video game violence, but correlation !=causation. I know that this is China, where the government gets to make up their own rules and a video game ban in the least of their problems, but we don't need to defend their actions!

      Oh, and as for the cigarettes thing -- the reason it is not against the law is that prohibiting things tends to be extremely ineffective (forbidden fruit/black market) -- we can help more people quit by making cigarettes prohibitively expensive through taxes, as well as making it inconvenient and undesirable through public smoking bans and education.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    15. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To clarify, the "smuggling problem" means violent crime, organized crime, gangs, corruption in police, prisons jammed to capacity, criminals made out of peaceful individuals, and billions of tax dollars wasted every year.

      Of course, none of this is a waste if you're in the business of government and the tax money is passing through your hands. Just ask the architects of the US war on drugs, which has done more to expand power and revenue for the US government over the past half a century than just about anything short of war.

      Now we're talking about a real cost to society, aren't we?

    16. Re:Well... by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Could you provide your sources for that statement? I have always been told it was the other way around.

    17. Re:Well... by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that these sorts of games "kill you", "kill other people" and are "genocide machines"? Aside from your moronic argument that harmful things ought to be against the law (McDonalds, anyone?), what are you trying to prove here? There is not one lick of evidence that violent video games cause real world harm. There may be a certain amount of (questionable) evidence the show correlation between real world violence and video game violence, but correlation !=causation. I know that this is China, where the government gets to make up their own rules and a video game ban in the least of their problems, but we don't need to defend their actions!

      My point (which you obviously, and maybe even intentionally, missed by a mile) was the hypocrisy of claiming that something is bad for you, then allowing it to happen. If you don't intend to do jack shit about it (because you believe you must not), then STFU about it.

      Oh, and as for the cigarettes thing -- the reason it is not against the law is that prohibiting things tends to be extremely ineffective (forbidden fruit/black market) -- we can help more people quit by making cigarettes prohibitively expensive through taxes, as well as making it inconvenient and undesirable through public smoking bans and education.

      Oh pleez. What's next: people can run faster with their legs missing, than with heavy shoes?

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    18. Re:Well... by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 1

      I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.

      You're imagining wrong: As smokers are often to die earlier than non-smokers (heart diseases, cancer, less lung capacity), the costs at the last stage of someone's life are less. In a typical universal-healthcare-system, the last stages of someone's life is where the most costs are incurred.

      So smoking actually -saves- money there.

      Sorry, I can't be arsed to Google the (Dutch) research that had this result as the actual outcome.

      --
      When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
    19. Re:Well... by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Tobacco revenues in excise duty and VAT
      BBC article from last year quoting a cost of around 3 billion to the NHS from a study by ASH, the anti-smoking group
      BBC article from last month claiming the figure had been underestimated previously and is now 5 billion

      There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension etc. in those cases.

      Smokers basically pay for their own costs twice over, even at the higher end of these figures.

    20. Re:Well... by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Screwed up my tags in that last one, let's try this again:

      Tobacco revenues in excise duty and VAT
      BBC article from last year quoting a cost of around 3 billion to the NHS from a study by ASH, the anti-smoking group
      BBC article from last month claiming the figure had been underestimated previously and is now 5 billion

      There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension etc. in those cases.

      Smokers basically pay for their own costs twice over, even at the higher end of these figures.

      This stuff has been shown over and over again. The "I'm paying for your treatment" argument is totally and utterly invalid in the UK.

    21. Re:Well... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      "My point (which you obviously, and maybe even intentionally, missed by a mile) was the hypocrisy of claiming that something is bad for you, then allowing it to happen. If you don't intend to do jack shit about it (because you believe you must not), then STFU about it."

      WTF are you talking about? Total logic fail. Why is it hypocritical to say that something is bad and then not make it against the law? Is it hypocritical for the government to tell us that we need to eat better without outlawing McDonalds and mandating a good diet? Of course not, the folks researching our health NEED to tell us what they are figuring out and what is good and bad for us, but it is not hypocritical for them to let us decide for ourselves whether or not to listen. By your line of reasoning, all fast food joints would be put out of business, you would be chased by a guy with a cattle prod to make sure you run the mandatory 5 miles a day, and government operatives would bust into your bedroom every time you (well, probably not you, but other people) decided to have sex just to make sure that they are wearing a condom. If this were not the case, government funded medical research (which is a very large portion of medical research, btw), would not be allowed to inform you of the risks in the world around you. Public schools would not be able to warn kids about the risks of fatty foods, cigarettes, and unprotected sex. What you are advocating is either fascism or idiocy.

      Oh pleez. What's next: people can run faster with their legs missing, than with heavy shoes?

      Again, WTF are you talking about? Do you think about these viewpoints before you share them? I am saying that making things against the law does not make people not do them. This is very well backed up by evidence. The most well known example of this is alcohol prohibition -- nobody stopped drinking, alcohol consumption was just pushed underground. This created a huge black market economy and allowed villains like Al Capone to effectively take over the major cities. Because of the fact that alcohol had to be produced by villains as well, there was not quality control. Drinkers had no idea how much alcohol they were getting and the homemade hooch frequently contained some seriously noxious chemicals which rendered many users blind.

      Compare this to what we are doing with smoking, and what Portugal has done with drug use. In both cases, we are using education and treatment to reduce the use of these substances, both of which are far more effective.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    22. Re:Well... by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      You watch too much movies, dude. Get real.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    23. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re:Well... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      "You watch too much movies, dude. Get real."

      Nice -- logic fail and grammar fail, all in one short comment!

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    25. Re:Well... by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Yes grammar and spelling are always there to help you out. Most self-righteous fools resort spell-checking and grammar-correction in the end.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    26. Re:Well... by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      Gun. Head. No one.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    27. Re:Well... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am sure "self righteous fools" such as myself frequently run out of things to say to you upon realizing that you are apparently 100% impervious to logic and rational thought.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    28. Re:Well... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Cigarettes are consumed by everyone, particularly the powerful. Video games are played by a few, particularly the young.

      If they government bans cigarettes, they become the enemy. If the government bans video games, they will be seen by most as a protector.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    29. Re:Well... by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Agreed

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    30. Re:Well... by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, I'm sure you're 100% rational and logical.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    31. Re:Well... by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Very well, these figures are rather convincing, at least for the UK. Thank you for clearing this up.

      In the future I would recommend to add these sources to the post immediately with all of these benefits:

      1) Higher karma for you
      2) Better accessible information for everyone (esp. because of point 1)
      3) Saves space of slashdot, because we don't need to argue back and forth

      But you most likely figured that out already :)

      PS: I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing. And sorry for everyone elses post which I did not reply to.

    32. Re:Well... by Nursie · · Score: 1

      I didn't bother to post my references originally because these are pretty widely known facts, at least in the UK. It only really seems to be the USA where there is this phobia of "paying for the other guy" where the myth continues and is often used to back up the "keep medicine private" argument.

      I realise I'm making a big assumption about your nationality here.

      Also, I've never really bothered about karma here on /.

    33. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's better than just saying games are not ok and letting everyone buy them... Like with cigarettes. Yeah, smoking kills you. Smoking kills other people. Cigarettes are genocide machines. So why the fuck do you allow people to sell them in the first place?!

      Actually, smoking also saves lives. Tobacco use help to slow down and sometimes prevent the development of a lot of psychiatric diseases (like schizophrenia, alzheimer's and depressions). This is proven facts. It's also proven that people that are likely to develop such diseases are more likely to start smoking (an instinct to self medicate). But it is pretty much impossible to estimate how many lives smoking saves, or could save. It is likely less then the amount of people dying of smoking, but should be taken into consideration.

      Tobacco use is also an effective cure for obesity and can actually increase the stamina of someone who starts smoking. Of course, exercise and a healthy diet is almost as effective against obesity and as a bonus has a lot of other positive side effects.

      Yes I'm a smoker, and I have a bias. I smoke cigars approximately once a month. This increases the risk for me to get some forms of cancers (not lung cancer though, as I only inhale very small doses of smoke, someone living in a city is more likely to get lung cancer, or even someone who likes to barbecue). It also increase the risk for some non-cancer glandular conditions. If I had a car and filled the tank with petrol once a month (and was exposed to petrol fumes), the risk of me to get the same diseases would be much higher along with an increased risk of a lot of other diseases, and I would get small injuries in my brain every time I went to the gas station (but nobody wants to forbid people from using petrol). At the positive: I have a really bad memory capacity, bad enough to be classified as a small handicap. Smoking increases my memory capacity enough to be statistically proven and pass above what is considered to be a handicap (only just, I still have a really, really bad memory). I have also a history of depressions and schizophrenia in my family and so far I haven't got any (knock on wood). In fact there are no non-smokers on my mothers side of the family that haven't got a severe depressions before they reached 45, most of the smokers have not got any depressions at all.

    34. Re:Well... by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      I don't know if cigarette taxes are the reason to still allow cigarettes in Sweden, for example. I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.

      The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.

      People who smoke tend to die earlier but after retirement. That is exactly (financially) when the government+healthcare wants you to die. I'm not a smoker, but I actually believe that banning smoking would cause the average cost/person of health care to rise as people live longer and incur more TOTAL costs. Do I have facts and figures no, but we're just talking here right?

    35. Re:Well... by quadrox · · Score: 1

      My nationality is actually danish, nevertheless I had never heard of these sort of numbers being published before (and so easily comparable). Not that I didn't think these numbers could be found, I just never happened to find them myself.

    36. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hi, light smoker here

      Ah.... I guess you're only risking Lung Cancer 'Lite', then

  2. Good by Alarindris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never understood why people think being 'gangsta' is cool. Being 'gangsta' is being willfully ignorant and talking like you're retarded.

    Get off of my fucking lawn.

    1. Re:Good by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice way to be completely off-topic. You're criticizing hip-hop, not criminals. Gangsters aren't limited to inner city black youths who wear stockings on their head under a baseball cap, it's any criminal who's in the gang. Some of them even wear suits.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop talkin shit biatch, I'll cut you

    3. Re:Good by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Do you hold that view about movies, books, music, and TV Shows that portray gangesters and other such characters in any way, as well?

      It's people like you who not only are unable to determine the difference between reality and fiction, but assume that others are similarly impaired and must be 'protected', that are truly the most monsterous threats to real human freedoms.

      You disgust me.

    4. Re:Good by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      Do you hold that view about movies, books, music, and TV Shows that portray gangesters and other such characters in any way, as well?

      No.

      It's people like you who not only are unable to determine the difference between reality and fiction, but assume that others are similarly impaired and must be 'protected', that are truly the most monsterous threats to real human freedoms.

      Wat?

      You disgust me.

      Sry D:

    5. Re:Good by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why people think being 'gangsta' is cool. Being 'gangsta' is being willfully ignorant and talking like you're retarded.

      Because that's what most teenagers aspire to. It takes guts to admit that the pretty world view you were raised with just doesn't cut it in the real world, and that you're completely lost. So instead, most teenagers get angry, act like they know everything, lash out, break stuff, smoke chemicals and pretend they think it's a good thing, etc.

      Eventually, if they're lucky, they realise that's not working for them, open their hearts again, and develop the maturity needed for the adult world. Or maybe they're unlucky and end up in prison before that happens.

    6. Re:Good by 4D6963 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Troll please, read this Wikipedia entry for gangster, tell me whether you see the likes of Bugsy Siegel or of 50 Cent, then STFU.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    7. Re:Good by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Besides RTFA, the topic is all about "mafia gangs". Nothing about "gangstas". Not only was I not being pedantic but you're nitpicking and wrong.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood why people think anybody cares about what they think.

      Get off my internets.

      P.S.
      Hip-Hop!=willful ignorance and speaking like retards. we call those people rednecks.

    9. Re:Good by ThinkWeak · · Score: 1

      Aren't the steps between "Mafia gangstas" and hording in WoW fairly small? Don't you build a team of people, gear up, and then go kill/plunder to get items/gold?

    10. Re:Good by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Erm, what about us adults who are angry about the state of the world, act like they know everything, smoke chemicals and think it's good thing etc?

      I mean, just because I can make it in the world doesn't mean I have to like the reality I see and the dumb apes that inhabit it, does it?

    11. Re:Good by tsq · · Score: 1

      You know, I'd honestly prefer to be a "willfully ignorant" "retard talkin'" "gangsta" than a racist white nerd, to be honest.

      --
      This sig is Y2K compliant.
    12. Re:Good by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      Because that's what most teenagers aspire to. It takes guts to admit that the pretty world view you were raised with just doesn't cut it in the real world, and that you're completely lost. So instead, most teenagers get angry, act like they know everything, lash out, break stuff, smoke chemicals...

      ... to escape the painful reality. And possibly call it 'fun'.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    13. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gangsters aren't limited to inner city black youths who wear stockings on their head under a baseball cap, it's any criminal who's in the gang. Some of them even wear suits.

      Some of them even carry badges.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, this is the first time I have seen someone tell someone else to STFU based on a definition sourced from Wikipedia.

      A possibly relevant fact might be that the lives of hiphopers-who-pretend-to-be-gangsters are, by their own choice, on the surface for most people indistinguishable from true gangsters. If you create a law that ban glorifications of the lifestyles of gangsters, it would also make sense for it to ban glorification of the lifestyles of people who are indistinguishable from gangsters.

    15. Re:Good by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      See the part about maturing and opening your heart. That means you should start to feel some compassion for the dumb apes ;)

    16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, expecting a group (assumed by you to be black) to behave in a cival manner is racism?

      That's the most racist thing I've heard all day.

    17. Re:Good by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Only pity and exasperation so far I'm afraid. I'd feel compassion if they were less determined to screw themselves and everyone else over.

    18. Re:Good by 4D6963 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, they're just irrelevant.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  3. Glorifying loot and kills by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Apparently WoW will not reopen in China any time soon...

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Glorifying loot and kills by MaerD · · Score: 1

      This was my first thought.. "well, there goes most MMO's.. at least Eve, WOW, and COV"
      Any game that has PVP for that matter and allows "clans", "guilds", or other similar groups is out.. after all, you'll just be a gang looking to beat all the other gangs, right?

      --
      I put on my robe and wizard hat..
  4. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If by first you mean fourth.... Yeah I guess you are first ;-S

  5. And websites with games on them? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

    This gives them another excuse to ban many websites (even if they already do, now they have another reason to).... facebook, myspace, etc. all have applications that are mob/mafia/gangster based. They could probably ban a large portion of flash game websites.

  6. Genes Determine Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    Beijing is wasting its time. Genes determine violence. Some ethnic groups are prone to violence. Playing violent video games will not affect the rate of violence.

    Consider Africans (and African-Americans). They murder and rape at a much higher rate than either Europeans or Japanese. Most Africans in Africa cannot even afford video games, yet they rape and kill with wild abandon.

    Look at the crime statistics of South Africa. After the Africans seized control from the Whites, the rate of violence skyrocketed.

    Thus just proves the old saying: you can take the African out of the jungle, but you cannot take the jungle out of the African.

  7. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save your mod points: I admit that this is -1 Offtopic. Anyway.

    It's been a few years since I last read Slashdot regularly, and the troll count has increased something like 5-fold. Was this a sudden increase, or something gradual? Anyone have an explanation for this?

  8. Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure this will be downmodded by Chinese nationalist trolls, but what the heck -- I'd complain about the injustice of this, but given that China is run by an unelected, authoritarian government, I'd say they have bigger problems there. I realize how China's history of fragmentation and turmoil makes many Chinese believe that authoritarian rule is best for China, but the fact remains that other parts of this planet managed to escape turmoil *and* develop without authoritarianism. I can only hope that some day the Chinese people will see the light.

    1. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize how China's history of fragmentation and turmoil makes many Chinese believe that authoritarian rule is best for China, but ...

      Perhaps that is part of the problem... maybe China should be divided into fragments as the local population wish. Of course, the chances of that happening are approximately equal to zero.

    2. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ctrl+H "china" for "the USA" and you wouldn't be far off the mark...

    3. Re:Small Potatoes by Improv · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're talking as if western libertene thought is a faith. It's another way to run a society, and one that we've probably taken a bit too far (even if its foundations are sound).

      We'd probably be better off if parents (opressors!) were to make sure that youth in the US have better role models than our rappers. Consumerism has, at least in some areas, created terrible role models for children and given us a cultural rot that wastes potential of individuals and encourages crime. We may be able to find ways to combat this that are compatible with a libertene culture (with or without the state, we have an obligation to do cultural steering). China's taking a more direct route to fix an obvious problem, while the worst flavours of our political philosophies have a head-in-the-sand attitude, refusing to use the state to do any cultural maintenance/steering/enrichment and refusing to see it as an obligation outside the state. The latter are proposing a suicide pact where they would have us watch as society falls apart because to do anything else would mean not being "neutral".

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    4. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reported

    5. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So put "china" in "Hex edit mode"?
      63 68 69 6E 61?!

    6. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure this will be downmodded by Chinese nationalist trolls, but what the heck -- I'd complain about the injustice of this, but given that China is run by an unelected, authoritarian government, I'd say they have bigger problems there. I realize how China's history of fragmentation and turmoil makes many Chinese believe that authoritarian rule is best for China, but the fact remains that other parts of this planet managed to escape turmoil *and* develop without authoritarianism. I can only hope that some day the Chinese people will see the light.

      This might have happened were it not for meddling Europeans, Americans, and Japanese that attempted to oppress and own china, giving a chance for communism to appeal to the masses.
      Please look at your own country's evils before you tell others what to do.

    7. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe and Japan I can understand. When did America start oppressing China?

    8. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because all Chinese people are the same, everywhere and they all think alike; i.e. they all believe that Authoritarian rule is the best for China.

      Especially the Chinese people outside of China, they too are just extensions of the China Mainland Hivemind.

      Well, I for one welcome these Chinese Hivemind overlords...

  9. Real vs Fake by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?

    I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.

    1. Re:Real vs Fake by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.

      And you drew this conclusion about well over a billion people, based on the actions of how many?

      This just in: Politicians suck, everywhere!

    2. Re:Real vs Fake by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

      So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real? [...]

      ... Unlike American and European teenagers.

    3. Re:Real vs Fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are stupid people everywhere, even in that perfect little fantasy land that you live in. Children need to be protected because they are naive, stupid people need to be protected for exactly the same reason.

    4. Re:Real vs Fake by omarch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?

      It's not Real vs Fake. It is about cultural values. All those games and movies tell you that the best thing in a world is to make a quick buck and spend it on chicks, alcohol and cool car. And this has bad influence on youngsters

    5. Re:Real vs Fake by twostix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok did you miss the last 40 years of Chinese history??

      Dear white middle class westerners,

      China is not an Asian version of America, the UK or Australia. It is run by a ruthless totalitarian government and said government is not all benevolent smiles, hugs and teddy bears like western governments are. Yes it's hard to believe if you listen to moral relativists in western countries as they bash on their own governments (which *is* a great deal of fun I admit) but there's a reason one doesn't hear the Chinese in China railing against the Chinese government in any meaningful way (and it's not because they're are doing such a bang up job).

      Please keep that in mind when reading any Chinese related news.

    6. Re:Real vs Fake by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?

      I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.

      You know, I agree with your conclusion but I disagree with your reasoning. You've employed the all too often cited strawman.

      I don't think that the Chinese government has implicated distrust in the discernment of its people. The common person is adequately capable of drawing distinctions between reality and fantasy. However, the Chinese government understands all too well the depravity of humanity. Their reasoning goes along the lines that what you perceive through the senses effects the nature of your psychology in many ways, especially subliminally. Now, the Chinese (as well as many Western governments) are well acquainted with the concept (i.e. in the form of propaganda) that we absorb much more implicitly than explicitly.

      The distinction of distrust in the discernment of self-knowledge and distrust in the discernment of external perceptions is huge. Lacking the discernment of reality to fantasy is cause for insanity. Lacking the discernment of introspection is mundanity. Few truly know themselves.

      --
      My page.
    7. Re:Real vs Fake by jandersen · · Score: 1

      So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?

      Repeating the same, stupid fallacy over and over may be enough to convince you, but it doesn't make it more true.

      Another possible interpretation could be that the majority of the Chinese people want it this way and that the government simply follows their wishes. It is not impossible - even the most oppressive government wouldn't be in power unless they had the support of a considerable part of the population, and China is far from the most oppressive regime in the world.

      In fact, knowing China and Chinese culture, I'd say that my interpretation is a lot more likely; Chinese culture focuses a lot more on the value of things like education, self-control and morality, and the typically American admiration for notorious criminals such as Billy the Kid, Al Capone and the Mafia is not something they share. Being married to a Chinese, I know just how much revulsion that kind of things generate.

    8. Re:Real vs Fake by symes · · Score: 0, Troll

      Perhaps the Chinese are confident that their games industry can come up with games that are both fun, engaging and yet do not glorify reckless murder. And I'm sorry to all you hand wavers out there decrying this decision because "the Chinese should be able to discern reality from fiction" - unfortunately there is a significant number of people in this world who cannot and these games contribute to a normative environment that condones violence. Just look at how easily kids are convinced that they should wear the latest clothes from brand X, drink coke, eat macdonalds, listen to hip hop, walk with a swagger... you sincerely believe some of these kids are not influenced by these games? I think it is a sad indictment of the moral state of our society when people argue for the right to murder - real or imagined.

      Now get off my lawn

    9. Re:Real vs Fake by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

      Good point. I work with inner-city middle school kids, and many of them are "wanna-be-gangsters". They really think it is cool to be in gangs because it has been glorified in movies and games. Tony Montana has become a hero for many of these kids. Having said this, I don't thinks these movies and games should be banned, but they do influence our youth, especially inner-city kids, who often lead turbulent lives.

    10. Re:Real vs Fake by Knutsi · · Score: 1

      I suspect some small percentage people ARE affected by games, but I think allowing these games is much less dangerous to society than allowing authorities to limit your access to media and entertainment (to the extent it is done in authoritarian regimes, where the authorities are the real gangsters - but they don't allow movies about that either, do they? Hmmm...).

    11. Re:Real vs Fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.

      I thought the Olympics proved that to everyone. >1 billion people and they can't find a pretty girl that can sing? Or gymnasts that are over 14?

    12. Re:Real vs Fake by hey! · · Score: 1

      The Chinese take virtue ethics very seriously.

      Personally, I think that plot in most games is window dressing; it doesn't really seem to matter much. Story plots seem to be a lot more potent than game plots. A story's plot can change the world, be it *Uncle Tom's Cabin*, *Mein Kampf*, or the latest political conspiracy theory of your choice. I doubt we'll ever see a computer game that will have that kind of propaganda power.

      I'm not entirely sure why there is a disparity between games and stories, but I think it might be a left brain/right brain thing. You can only immerse yourself in a story if you allow it to take over your faculties of language and logic. Video games achieve the experience of flow state by taking up spatial and motor faculties.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Real vs Fake by Threni · · Score: 1

      I love it when people say "inner city" when they mean black!

    14. Re:Real vs Fake by Threni · · Score: 1

      Governments do evil things, but you're definitely at a greater risk of personal loss/injury from some wannabe kid than you are from a politician.

    15. Re:Real vs Fake by Knutsi · · Score: 1
      My guess is that over the past 500 years, bad authorities have killed, injured of messed up the lives of far more people than other criminals.

      Some examples:

      • loss of property
      • assassination, jailing for political activity
      • extermination for ethnic reasons
      • suppression (violent or otherwise) of groups
      • war

      Yes, crime sucks and should be fought, but bad politicians are more far more scary.

    16. Re:Real vs Fake by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

      Yes! The Chinese government has, stupid as they are, chosen to conservatively follow the lead of social psychology textbooks (e.g. David Myers "Social Psychology") about how we get influenced by video games, rather than random posters on Slashdot.

      Now, it may be that the textbook in question is wrong (it's a major one in the field, but the only one I've read that cover this particular topic) - but if you're experimenting with a billion people, it is a relatively sane choice to say "We'll remove the freedom to experience violent/gangster glorifying videogames in order to give people the freedom of walking around without being violently assaulted."

      Breaking this down, I think the following questions are the ones that's relevant. They're working under the assumption that there may be some correlation between playing violent/gangster glorifying video games, an assumption that as noted is shared by at least some major social psychologists. (I've included both positive and negative influence as separate points. Note that Freud's theory of catharsis / building up and releasing "emotional energy" is not considered scientific any more, and a hypothesis based on this giving positive results should at the very least be examined closely. As far as I know, substitute activities aren't well supported either.)

      What is our best estimate at the cost of the extra criminal behavior by people that are influenced to be more violent

      What is our best estimate at the benefit from the people that become less violent due to video games?

      What's our best estimate at the value of the freedom to play violent video games - ie, how much does it improve the lives of the people that play them (and those around them) compared to not having them available?

      What's our best estimate at the cost of enforcement for this law?

      My personal guesses is that there is a significant number of people that are slightly influenced towards violence and acceptance of crime by these kinds of games, that there are few that are influenced to not be violent from them, that the value of playing this particular type of video games instead of other video games is quite low (assuming that your peers don't have the games either), and that the cost of enforcement for this kind of law is fairly low in a country that does heavy censorship already. Under these assumptions, the Chinese move makes sense and is rational, even though it goes against my personal feelings with regards to censorship (I hate when censorship is necessary/beneficial.)

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    17. Re:Real vs Fake by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

      Inner-city as in all Hispanic second language learners.

    18. Re:Real vs Fake by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Well, I knew that when China banned Death Note.

      Although in that case, I think it might have been government bureacrats having a hard time distinguishing fantasy from reality!

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    19. Re:Real vs Fake by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It is run by a ruthless totalitarian government and said government is not all benevolent smiles, hugs and teddy bears like western governments are.

      The Chinese are working on a different model, but East and West both deny citizens essential rights in the name of control. The difference is that the West hasn't taken up mass state-sponsored organlegging... yet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Real vs Fake by Improv · · Score: 1

      You don't have it quite right. China is often said to operate under an arrangement with its citizens where the state leaves them alone provided they don't push into politics and don't threaten society.

      It's bad if you want western political liberties. It's not so bad if you keep out of politics.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    21. Re:Real vs Fake by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      there's a reason one doesn't hear the Chinese in China railing against the Chinese government

      Because it's hard to talk from underneath a tank tread? Did I win?

    22. Re:Real vs Fake by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > China is not an Asian version of America

      You are right.

      The Chinese people tend to have a different view of authoritarian governments, just like they have a different view of strict authoritarian fathers and rulers.

      As long as things don't start getting really crappier, "Big Daddy" can watch over them and tell them what to do and what not to do.

      Perhaps someone should go do proper anonymous surveys to see how satisfied/dissatisfied the Chinese people are with their Government, and also do the same in other countries like the USA. The Chinese people might be a lot less dissatisfied than many Westerners assume.

      Very many are clearly very proud of what their country has achieved, and I won't be surprised if they think their Gov was responsible for it.

      The rest might not give a damn as long as they keep making money, and their families have enough food and goodies.

      FWIW, Singapore also has a fairly authoritarian government. Chewing gum is banned (except chewing gum of therapeutic value). Most of the people there don't really care either. Some may grumble a bit, but if things on average get better for them, they're not going to hold huge protests.

      Note to Dictators, most people will put up with you and all sorts of evils, as long as you maintain law and order, and you can give them enough "bread and circuses".

      --
    23. Re:Real vs Fake by twostix · · Score: 1

      So if a Chinese citizen decides to get hold of one of these banned games the government won't care? I beg to differ.

      Not having your government owned housing bulldozed and being forcefully relocated to the other side of the country if you wish to keep a roof over your head at the corrupt whim of some autocrat is a pretty basic freedom to have I'd think.

      Being forced at gunpoint to work in factories producing western goods for 10 years because you said or committed a minor infraction that personally upset some local low level unelected party bureaucrat is a problem for the average person to worry about.

      There's layers of government and corruption and nepotism so thick in China it would make even the most big government, red tape loving westerners headspin.

      And *everything* is political.

    24. Re:Real vs Fake by Improv · · Score: 1

      Your idea of modern China is a mix of things that never happened and things that don't happen anymore.

      China's government is rather corrupt, and it is full of nepotism (just like China's private industry). The other things you describe are not accurate.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    25. Re:Real vs Fake by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Exactly correct. Chinese culture, whether in not-free mainland or free Hong Kong or Taiwan, do not look highly on gangster culture (which is often glorified in its movies) and are in fact terrified of negative influences on their youth. Think of the groups of think-of-the-children helicopter parents in the U.S. - it's simply magnified tenfold in Chinese (or generally East Asian) communities.

      The Chinese government is simply enacting a populist policy. It's hard for Westerners to understand that a good number - not all - but a good number of policies of the Chinese government do have popular support behind it. Having Breads and Circuses for your people tend to require making a good majority of them happy and content most of the time.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    26. Re:Real vs Fake by Threni · · Score: 1

      I live in London, and wankstas/wiggas/chavs are a bigger problem for me than the threat of "war" or being "suppressed".

    27. Re:Real vs Fake by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Movies also tell you that Superman is real.

      I find your lack of abilitiy to discern the difference between real and fake to be troubling. Do you also believe that everything on the internet is real?

      Myself, I trust the youngster over someone like you, every single time, no matter what fictional media they view for entertainment.

    28. Re:Real vs Fake by omarch · · Score: 1

      Tell about Real vs Fake to all the teenagers that keep Playboy under their bed and dream about sex with some celebrity. I bet they would be very disappointed if they met her without all her makeup and photoshop.

    29. Re:Real vs Fake by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      If you want a counter example to prove you are wrong. Look at the "inner city" demographics of Miami.

  10. Good (2) by Meneth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe, if the government bans enough stuff, the Chinese people will get fed up and construct a proper democracy. A long shot, I know, but one can hope.

    1. Re:Good (2) by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, cause it worked so well the last time a few Chinese peasants tried to revolt by gumming up the army's tanks' treads with their corpses.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Good (2) by defireman · · Score: 1

      So we can be ruled over by corporations instead of the Party. Do you honestly believe that a Democracy is a miracle cure or something?

    3. Re:Good (2) by RobinH · · Score: 1

      It's better than being stuffed in a concentration camp because you didn't toe the party line, and being force fed through a tube down your nose, and stored in a cell that isn't quite big enough in any dimension for you to stretch out fully, just so you'll eventually break down and sign the document admitting your guilt, so they can finally "legally" execute you.

      Like they do in China.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Good (2) by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause it worked so well the last time a few Chinese peasants tried to revolt by gumming up the army's tanks' treads with their corpses.

      Sort of brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Chinks in the armor" doesn't it?
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Disclaimer: The word "chink" is in the summary tags - nobody complained/mentioned it yet. If you find it racist then feel free to type some vitriol or mod this down. Thank you.

    5. Re:Good (2) by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      It wasn't peasants who were massacred at Tiananmen Square, it was students. Many from affluent backgrounds.

    6. Re:Good (2) by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      So you're telling us that you are willing to turn a blind eye to a government that abuses it's citizens and control every aspect of their lives? True that Democracy has it's flaw but at least we do not have to worry about the government murdering us in the middle of the night. And that is exactly what the Chinese government had done to my great uncle and his family.

    7. Re:Good (2) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the ideal is people putting pressure on the gov't who in turn put pressure on corporations to give people what they want. Communism sucks, but those corporations need a leash^H^H^H^H^H choke chain. Corporation income needs to correlate with consumer happiness, and gov'ts need to reinforce that.

      Instead it's basically corporations and the gov't increasingly screwing around with people just gradually enough so that the alternative of revolution looks too ugly in comparison at any one time. We know each gov't is a combination of good eggs (competent, work hard, and believe in what they're doing), bad eggs (psychopaths) and flakes (just eat at fancy restaurants all day). But even people with some power hardly know how much of each were dealing with. We just know the end result seems to be okay? Maybe? Enough so that not enough people are interested in revolt.

      To me, democracy *is* a miracle cure... we're just not living in a full democracy. Voting once every 4 years for one choice of two parties (more or less... I still vote Green in Canada) in a first-past-the-post format is hardly a democracy. We're not even directly voting on issues (like gun control? Hope you like abortion too)! Sure feels better than China to me though.

    8. Re:Good (2) by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Thats so fucked up; I'm feeling pretty dirty about laughing.

  11. Re:fp by gmhowell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Save your mod points: I admit that this is -1 Offtopic. Anyway.

    It's been a few years since I last read Slashdot regularly, and the troll count has increased something like 5-fold. Was this a sudden increase, or something gradual? Anyone have an explanation for this?

    We've suckered TPTB at work into believing that this sight is a reasonable IT research site, but haven't been able to provide a good business case for 4chan yet.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  12. Law as a side-effect of the one-child policy? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Law as a side-effect of the one-child policy? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      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.

      Technically, the result of decades of one-child policy is that as long as this policy remains in effect, there will not be a baby-boom generation, unlike the united states and europe where older people of the WW2 generation suddenly found themselves overrun with teenagers who didn't care for Bing Crosby and wanted to see those hippies from Liverpool and the satanic hip gyrations of Elvis Presley. Until the older generation leaves through attrition, the new generation will find themselves hopelessly overnumbered and underpowered. Give it another 20 years though and the story might take another tangent.

  13. Bullies in the playground by lordharsha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *sigh* Gorram governments.

    When I was a kid, politics was this big boring thing that all the grown ups with moustaches and beards went on and on about.

    Now that I'm older, it's a hell of a lot more like a pissing contest, with each country trying to introduce more asinine laws and control each and every moment of their citizens lives. Hell, it's almost like a black comedy.

    I'd laugh at the whole thing, but some of the shit that the governments of the world do in our name really scare me. Eventually enough people are going to come to their senses and fight back.

    That's it for my rant. Mod me up, mod me down, ignore me, but I felt I had to get my 2c in.

    --
    I am, and that is sufficient.
    1. Re:Bullies in the playground by twostix · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that the Chinese government, the government of a country about 10 years away from becoming a superpower really gives a shit what anyone else thinks about it?

      They don't play inane western "pissing match" games. They just get on with owning half of the worlds factories, governments and natural resources while stepping on the throat of anybody in their population that doesn't like them.

      Hell, the US secretary of state has already bowed down to China desperate for China to continue buying US Bonds so the US Federal Government can continue to function in any capacity. Very shortly (if not already) much of the west will need China much much more than China with 1 billion people on their way up needs the west.

      We'll be wondering wtf happened to the wests dominant position within a decade.

    2. Re:Bullies in the playground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll be wondering wtf happened to the wests dominant position within a decade.

      It has been outsourced.

    3. Re:Bullies in the playground by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely true. We sold our dominance for next quarter's numbers. We sold it to get money for private economic clubs (commonly called "shareholders"). Their desires trumped both economic and technological security.
      .
      The clubs haven't done so well lately either. Worse to come, I'm afraid.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  14. Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  15. Why think for yourself? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    When you can have the government think for you? Oh, wait, you don't want me to type that in? You don't want me to type this in either? Then what should I type in?

    1. Re:Why think for yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Then what should I type in?'

      nothing, but your signature on your taxes cheque.
      now shut up.

  16. Organized troublemakers by Leptok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmmm, I wonder why a repressive government would have a problem with glorifying organized groups of troublemakers?

    1. Re:Organized troublemakers by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      They've had no problems oppressing organized groups of exercisers, organized groups of students, organized groups of monks, even organized groups of athletes.

      I think it's the "organized group" part they have the problem with.

  17. It's over for some games by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    This is terrible news for the upcoming Gangsta Skeleton: Democracy City MMORPG.

  18. Myspace/Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There goes Facebook & Myspace then, since both host an application called Mafia Wars which is quite popular according to its wiki article - over 2.5mil players.

    "Mafia Wars is available on Facebook, Myspace, Tagged, and Yahoo"

  19. No games involving Communist party then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... which has proven to be quite a criminal gang during history...

  20. Other gaming news by kanwisch · · Score: 1

    In related news, Xinhua news agency reported that games involving corruption were being added to educational curriculum.

  21. cigarettes are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Second-hand smoke is a massive myth.

  22. *BZZZT* Wrong answer by Moraelin · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:*BZZZT* Wrong answer by quadrox · · Score: 1

      My father, who is a doctor, says you are plain wrong and that the costs to society from treating these patients is far higher than the tax income. As a layman I cannot judge who is right or wrong, but I urge everyone to take the parent post with a grain of salt or at least a [citation needed].

    2. Re:*BZZZT* Wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm to lazy to look up the study proper which supports the grandparent (hell, i'm too lazy to log in), however, here's a link to newspaper article discussing the results: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=1

    3. Re:*BZZZT* Wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the studies have been done in the UK - smokers pay, via tax revenue on tobacco alone, almost double what it costs the NHS to treat them.

      Having trouble finding the studies themselves but here's some figures:

      It costs the NHS £5billion to treat smokers every year now: Link

      Smokers pay approx £10billion in excise from tobacco and VAT on cigs alone: link

      By the way, this means that on top of my income tax contributions and other VAT sources, some of which will go towards the NHS the same as everybody else, we smokers are not only paying our own way, but double the amount required to treat us!

      There are no excuses, no valid reasons for denying me the ability to smoke in private. The same should be able to be said about any substance, smokeable or otherwise. As long as the the tax revenue outweighs the cost, society has not been noticeably harmed (lets be honest if it wasn't cigs etc., i'd find something else to consume till my death).

      Looks like it your dads turn to provide the citation btw.

         

    4. Re:*BZZZT* Wrong answer by migla · · Score: 1

      Ok. That makes sense. I thought I had heard of tobacco and alcohol being net losses for Sweden, but maybe I heard wrong or was lied to. Thanks for correcting me.

      "So please spare me the BS pretense that you somehow subsidize those."

      There's no BS pretense here. I just said what I heard. I didn't mean to imply anything. I'm a smoker who lives off wellfare. I have nothing against "lower class leeches" such as myself.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    5. Re:*BZZZT* Wrong answer by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Ok, I must apologize in any case. My tone was out of line and the assumption was unwarranted.

      It's just that I've heard the "I can tell them to stop because it's my money" argument before, about everything from smoking to abortions, that I am a bit irked by it by now.

      But of course it doesn't justify my lashing out at innocents. Sorry.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:*BZZZT* Wrong answer by migla · · Score: 1

      No problem. I can see how my comment was easily misunderstood.

      I should be more aware of how my tone of voice and/or my background doesn't come through implicitly to strangers on the internet.

      I'm glad there are people who are irked by lack of decency towards the less powerful. Keep it up! :)

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
  23. China has reached the 1930s! by thisissilly · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ever heard of the Hays Code? It applied to movies, but they didn't have video games back then.

    The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles" as follows:

    1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
    2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
    3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
    1. Re:China has reached the 1930s! by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Mod this man up, boy aren't we calling the kettle black.

    2. Re:China has reached the 1930s! by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Industry guidelines != law

    3. Re:China has reached the 1930s! by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      See also: the Comics Code Authority. Some links:
      Wikipedia
      TV Tropes

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    4. Re:China has reached the 1930s! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Right. Laws are passed by groups that the population as a whole has some influence over.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:China has reached the 1930s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So will they be distributing posters that shows people exactly what they should not do?

      FYI, I found this from this blog.

    6. Re:China has reached the 1930s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Also we should be vigilant that the same thing doesn't happen to video games over here, there are plenty of people lobbying for it.

      And with Jack Thompson out of the picture they might just be taken seriously.

  24. People might get ideas by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if they consume entertainment that glorifies gansters, e.g. this quote from the 1949 Jimmy Cagney Movie White Heat:

    It's always "somebody tipped them." Never "the cops are smart."

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  25. Exactly. What I want to see is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a game that glorifies acts of vigilante justice and lynch mobs against these fucking retards. I never understood why walking with a fake limp and having a biscuit-lipped mouth full of gold teeth was considered cool by some folks. Try doing some inner-city volunteer work, people, and you'll quickly get tired of the "gimmie" and the "gangster" mentalities, and you'll tell these people that their failure at life is due to their own poor choices. Should've been taking advantage of that free public education instead of acting like a little bitch and making your teacher's life hell. I just can't even begin to tell you how many times I personally witnessed a fat welfare queen dumping her kids on us volunteers while she locks herself in her government-provided house to smoke weed and fuck the latest deadbeat nigger to cross her doorway (without a condom, no doubt). You won't hear Obama blaming THOSE folks for America's problems, primarily because they are the inhuman product of the Great Society and are his largest voting block. Really folks, when do we say enough is enough and cut off the gravy train to these losers? BOO FUCKING HOO!!!

    As an aside, why is it that all of Obama's arguments rely on an appeal to emotion? Didn't he learn about logical fallacies in his first semester at Harvard Law? Oh right, he was an affirmative action product and didn't belong there in the first place. Gee, America is sooo racist, giving away these six-figure Ivy League educations to anybody who's not a white male...

  26. What's this? by WeirdingWay · · Score: 1

    Thugs banning games about gangsters?

  27. Free to Choose Otherwise Is to my Credit by happy_place · · Score: 1

    It's to my credit then that I choose not to partake of videogames that glorify criminality. I'm glad I live in a country that has no such wholesale banning of such material, and would hope that people would--of their own free will--avoid such influences on their own. It is a weak mind that has to depend on brutality for entertainment, but I'd rather that the weak minds have that option than to have it mandated otherwise. In a way by banning it, the people themselves never get to build the character to avoid such indulgent and gratuitous diversions. Of course with that said, it's a sad thing to note just how popular some of these titles are in our "free world". While I don't think such should be banned, I do wish a few more conscientious adults would stand up and say, "This stuff is garbage" and set an example of avoiding them. If such games were not nearly as popular as they are, perhaps the issue would never even be necessary. I've often wondered why choosing activities that uplift and edify seems to be less thrilling (when we all know it's right) than the alternatives.

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
    1. Re:Free to Choose Otherwise Is to my Credit by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      It's to my credit then that I choose not to partake of Guns that glorify criminality. I'm glad I live in a country that has no such wholesale banning of such material, and would hope that people would--of their own free will--avoid such influences on their own. It is a weak mind that has to depend on brutality for entertainment, but I'd rather that the weak minds have that option than to have it mandated otherwise. In a way by banning it, the people themselves never get to build the character to avoid such indulgent and gratuitous diversions. Of course with that said, it's a sad thing to note just how popular some of these Guns are in our "free world". While I don't think such should be banned, I do wish a few more conscientious adults would stand up and say, "This stuff is garbage" and set an example of avoiding them. If Guns were not nearly as popular as they are, perhaps the issue would never even be necessary. I've often wondered why choosing activities that uplift and edify seems to be less thrilling (when we all know it's right) than the alternatives.

  28. So, you base that on a personal opinion? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, your father is a doctor and somehow he's a bigger authority than those actually paying for those treatments?

    The link has already been provided by an AC above, but for whoever can't be arsed to copy and paste into the browser, here it is as actual link http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=1

    To recap, from the article itself:

    Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

    The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

    And that's just the costs. The smokers and the obese are simply cheaper. Even without the other factors, repeat after me, an obese smoker costs less than a thin and healthy person.

    It doesn't even yet include the pension contributions (which someone who dies earlier will benefit less from), money given to the government in tobacco taxes and VAT (without smokers, to get the same services from the government you might have to pay more in taxes), etc.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:So, you base that on a personal opinion? by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      If the costs were the only thing that matter then you would have a valid point. However, amount of work that is contributed by someone should also be taken into account. If a healthy skinny person lives 10 years longer than a smoker, how much does that person contribute to society?

      To put it more plainly, a person who costs $417,000 in health care but contributes $200,000 more over the course of their life is more desirable than the smoker who costs $326,000.

    2. Re:So, you base that on a personal opinion? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      But do they? A lot in the difference in costs is past the retirement age. If you're telling me that someone sitting on his porch yelling at kids to get off his lawn is actually contributing hundreds of thousands to society, I'll have to ask: in what way? Or since a cost that was mentioned were anti-dementia drugs in the old age, how/what do you figure someone with MS or Alzheimer's contributes to society?

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing to kill them or anything. But at least let's stop pretending that they totally contribute more than the cost of that medicine.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  29. Response by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Tommorrow's headline: "Gangsters Ban Games That Glorify Oppressive Totalitarian Regimes."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Response by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      Down with undemocratic Monarchies!

      Viva la Mushroom Kingdom Revolution!

  30. Kinda obvious actually by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Various studies have been done over the years. It's just not politically correct to say so.

    In countries where there's a significant health care system (either the NHS style or subsidies), smokers cost less than healthy people (especially when you factor in the tobacco taxes).

    The facts are a healthy person WILL eventually die. Go look at the pie chart showing what people die of. You can only adjust the size of the slices in the pie, you cannot avoid the death.

    If people live a healthy lifestyle, it's far less likely for them to die of heart disease.

    So guess what they _eventually_ die of? Either they die of cancer, or they eventually rot away slowly in a nursing home suffering from dementia. Or worse, they get a stroke and linger on for years paralyzed.

    All these are expensive - unless you say "OK we're not going to pay for that", but you could also say that to the smokers.

    And these healthy folks might be so healthy that they have a few expensive but successful treatments first before they die.

    Whereas the smokers and the obese are probably going to kick the bucket at the first medical crisis that happens soon after their most productive years.

    I'm not a smoker and not obese, and I find it ridiculous that people keep demonizing smokers and making their lives difficult (don't allow them to smoke in pubs etc) and at the same time they worry about "aging population". That's amazingly stupid and contradictory.

    Just make it illegal for minors to smoke (or to be encouraged to smoke, sold tobacco etc), and inform everyone that smoking is bad for health and will kill them earlier. Then slap on enough taxes, and they pay for their costs and other people as well.

    Maybe we could also give posthumous awards to the top contributing smokers who die early after making immense contributions to society - something like the Purple Heart. Call it the Black Lung or something ;).

    --
    1. Re:Kinda obvious actually by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      >The facts are a healthy person WILL eventually die.

      You're a quitter, you know that. I, personally, plan on living forever.

      Fine so fa9A&%M:JD&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

  31. Isn't Communism a form of gangsterism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn,
    Does that mean that if I have Chinese version of the game Civilization that I can't develop 'Communism' and build a police station to improve my citizen's additudes? Isn't Communism a form of gangsterism?

  32. Gangsterism is public harassment by individuals by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

    I guess China is afraid of the competition.

    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  33. The real problem by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    The real problem is that nobody can make an offer to China that they can't refuse...they'll just steal your offer and sell the knockoffs for half price.

  34. Elections in China by TheLink · · Score: 1

    They do have elections in China. Yes they effectively only have one party, but at the lower levels there can be multiple candidates that citizens can vote to be their representatives.

    See: http://www.chinaelections.net/about-us.asp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

    I doubt most of the Chinese people really care that there's only one Party.

    Maybe after a while the Chinese voters would be voting for two different factions in the One Party, and most American voters who bother to vote will still keep on voting for one of the Two Parties. Then the two systems will start to look very similar :).

    BTW, I've seen election regulations in the USA that give special treatment/advantages to the Two Parties that are not given to other parties. I find that rather strange.

    p.s. unlike in the USA, in China prisoners who have not committed categories of crimes are still eligible to vote or even be candidates (in theory anyway ;) ).

    --
    1. Re:Elections in China by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Elections in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      p.s. unlike in the USA, in China prisoners who have not committed categories of crimes are still eligible to vote or even be candidates

      It's clear you don't know what you're talking about because this is true in the US as well.

      Nice troll though. Nothing like supporting the brutal suppression of 1 billion people+ to show what a swell person you are.

    3. Re:Elections in China by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > It's clear you don't know what you're talking about because this is true in the US as well.

      Only two US states allow prisoners to vote.

      Do you even understand the meaning of the word "prisoner"? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prisoner

      In practice China strips a lot of prisoners of their political rights (in theory they only get stripped of political rights if they committed certain types of crime - which was what I was trying to say).

      Quote: "In Shanghai's Qingpu Prison, 723 prisoners out of 2,700 have the right to vote and all of them voted yesterday."

      That's pretty crappy compared to many other countries.

      But the USA with only 2 states out of 50 has some way to go too. Maybe the US should give Puerto Ricans better voting rights while they're at it.

      --
    4. Re:Elections in China by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Puerto Rico has had several opportunities to become a state. Puerto Ricans as a whole seem to be unwilling to pay more money to federal government in exchange for a couple of electoral votes.

  35. I agree, to an extent by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    I mentally compared the character Claude from GTA 3, with Carl Johnson from San Andreas.

    To me, Carl wasn't fundamentally a bad guy, but was someone in a number of very bad situations, and was also a product of his environment. He doesn't do anywhere near as many cold-blooded or anonymous assassination missions, and when he is sent on a few, it begins to push him towards a nervous breakdown, because he has a conscience. He is also depicted as one of the only characters in the game who is strongly anti-drugs. Carl is also involved in turf wars, but he doesn't willingly fraternise with the mob, for the most part. As a white person, for me San Andreas also had some value from an anthropological point of view, as well.

    Claude on the other hand was the proverbial silent psychopath. A lot of the missions he gets sent on are anonymous hits where he kills people who are complete strangers to him, in entirely cold blood. His story basically centres around his ascension within the heirarchies of a few different criminal organisations as well; the Italian Mafia, and the Yakuza.

    With the GTA games, Rockstar were basically giving the public what they knew said public wanted, and what would sell. However, that doesn't mean that the content of the games is positive; for the most part it really isn't. San Andreas has some redeeming elements, but for the most part it is still exceedingly nihilistic and negative. GTA 3 doesn't really have any redeeming elements at all; it's a cross between an interactive version of Scarface, and a larger version of a high school playground with guns, cars, and explosions.

    Anyone who thinks glorification of the Italian/Sicilian Mafia in particular is cool, needs to remember what said Mafia is and was. It was essentially a group of men who made money from committing crimes of various kinds on the one hand, and intermittently murdered people on the other. There's nothing positive there at all, and to me, there actually isn't really even anything romantic like there was with the pirate meme, either. They were just criminals and murderers; that's all.

  36. One other thing about China by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop slamming the Chinese government as thugs and criminals, you hypocrites, when in other articles you turn around and rabidly support Richard Stallman on the other.

    You can't have it both ways; Communism either is a bad thing, or it isn't.

    1. Re:One other thing about China by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Wow, you've just typified exactly the kind of thinking that's gotten us into this mess.
      .
      Communism, socialism, capitalism. These aren't booleans. Most western democracies (including us) have mixed systems of capitalist and government sponsored organizations (e.g. the public library, your grandma's social security, food and drug regulatory agencies, rural electrification, the highway system, the military, the monetary system, and so on.)
      .
      Neither capitalism nor socialism are magic fairies that solve all problems. You *need* that mix. China has them different proportion, and unfortunately, less regard for individual rights than we do. I wouldn't want to live under that, but it's obviously working for a lot of them.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  37. Sweet! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > The Chinese government has now begun implementing those plans,
    > starting with games that involve gangs.

    Let's play Pick-Ur-Punchline!

    A. So much for City of Villains

    B. I presume this outlaws all simulations of the Chinese government itself.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  38. I'm sorta with them on this one. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Gangsters are dangerous, whether they belong to the crips, bloods, hell's angels, goldman sachs, the white house or a lobbying group.
    .
    Of course, in the USA, we have the right of free association and free speech. I'm honestly conflicted on this one. I favor these rights at a gut level.

    But these rights are killing us too. Slowly. What to do?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  39. "Oh the Horror, the Horror" by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Chinese government should have a game created for the children that shows how the Chinese government helps the children? And also that by ignoring help from evil capitalists that china can truly prosper? Now THAT would be a hell of a game!

  40. Cultural differences by festers · · Score: 1

    I love seeing people getting worked up over stuff like this. Comments about totalitarian governments and censorship get tossed around and righteous anger runs hot. Well, someone please explain to me how this is any different from the shitstorm in the US over Janet Jackson's tit being shown at the Superbowl. In both cases we the government stepping in and doing something to "protect the children." The FCC came down hard and renewed their fight against "indecency." So while the banning of ganster games seems crazy to people outside of China, there are many people in other countries who think that banning female breasts is just as absurd.

    Please note, I'm not saying I agree with the actions of these governments, I'm just pointing out that every group of people seems to have their cultural taboos.

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  41. Confucius would support the Chinese government. by TheNarrator · · Score: 1
    http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html

    [2:19] The Duke of Ai asked: "How can I make the people follow me?" Confucius replied: "Advance the upright and set aside the crooked, and the people will follow you. Advance the crooked and set aside the upright, and the people will not follow you."

  42. Small Potatoes? No, actually, worthy of mention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree with calling this issue irrelevant in two ways.

    First, once upon a time, a certain nation struggling under overprotective rule got really, really unhappy about the price of tea. I doubt that anything like the American Revolution will happen in China in the next 20 years (take that however you want). Nevertheless, with skyrocketing numbers of literate, educated, and Internet-consuming people within its borders, the authoritarian regime may find itself having to relent on some of its paternalistic and intrusive policies in the face of growing internal pressure. If I'm right that such pressures exist (their presence, and more importantly, their quantity are uncertain to me) and that they will continue to increase (actually somewhat likely IF the pressures exist in any quantity now), then almost any issue could conceivably be the "last straw" that sets in motion a strong movement for greater individual autonomy.

    Second, look at it from the protectionist viewpoint. China's taken the step of blocking out "Gangsta" games now, but let's not forget, they've been filtering various games containing skeletons or any perceived slights to the Chinese government/army/way of life for some time. Sure, it smacks of intrusive social engineering, but it also blocks many blockbuster titles released by American companies from being sold legitimately, or at least holds them up through their very important initial hype period. With this, it gives Chinese publishers an advantage on the world -- first access to the lucrative and growing Chinese gaming demographic. Given the high rates of piracy in Asia, it's unlikely that a ban like this actually stops a determined person from acquiring the game they want -- at most, it's a matter of asking somebody that knows somebody and paying a grey-market premium, like getting marijuana in the USA. Nevertheless, the publisher doesn't capitalize on these pirated games; the money stays closer to home. If this is China's plan -- to whine about morality in order to enact a de facto embargo on US products to shelter its fledgling game industry -- it IS news about stuff that matters for nerds in the game design field.