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.
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.
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.
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.
*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?
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.
The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles" as follows:
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.
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:
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.
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.