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."

Comments

Re:Good

[4D6963]

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.

Small Potatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Real vs Fake

[MrMista_B]

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.

Re:Real vs Fake

[twostix]

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.

Good (2)

[Meneth]

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.

Bullies in the playground

[lordharsha]

*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.

Organized troublemakers

[Leptok]

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

*BZZZT* Wrong answer

[Moraelin]

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?

So, you base that on a personal opinion?

[Moraelin]

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.