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."
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.
Taxes. Huge amounts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
Hmmm, I wonder why a repressive government would have a problem with glorifying organized groups of troublemakers?
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.
if they consume entertainment that glorifies gansters, e.g. this quote from the 1949 Jimmy Cagney Movie White Heat:
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
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.