Slashdot Mirror
"Violent" Video Games To Be Banned In Venezuela
An anonymous reader writes "The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches has decided to ban 'violent' video games because they 'promote violence and can alter the behavior of children.' The new legislation in Venezuela says, 'The violence found in video games is translated into the real world.' This new law affects people who sell, 'use,' produce, import and distribute these games. Video games as a whole have been labeled as 'a consequence of savage capitalism' by PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), which is the political party led by Hugo Chavez. Days before this law was approved by the National Assembly, Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.' Just today the AFP released a report showing Caracas as the second most violent city on the planet — even more violent than Baghdad. I guess all those violent gangs in Venezuela are addicted to video games."
The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches
Venezuela's defense spending is just over $2B/year. Their oft-foe, Colombia, spends about $6B/year. And the US spends over $400B/year.
And, FYI, your "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Just today the AFP released a report showing Caracas as the second most violent city on the planet -- even more violent than Baghdad.
Didn't bother to mention that New Orleans came in right after Caracas, with only one less murder per 100,000 people, did you? Or that Caracas's murder rate fell dramatically since their last survey. Skew much?
Dear Lord: I don't want to go back to college, so please help me be sexy. Amen.
And this is the most scary part
, Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.'
Because we all know how -terrible- individualism is. But really when you look at oppressive regimes you see the death of individualism as a key characteristic. This just proved what most people knew: Chavez is a power-hungry dictator.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Actually, for countries that we just invade officially, our track record is damned good at 3.5 out of 4(Afghanistan is ongoing and is hampered by the conduct of our allies' troops.). It is only countries that we try to interfere with through subterfuge or 'police actions' that our record fails.
If by "collectivist" you mean we can't resist taking by force that which belongs to others (especially if it belongs to everyone)? Yes, correct. Make no mistake, though; this is entirely and exclusively about corruption which is so prevalent in our society it's almost an axiom in venezuelan culture. Most of our history is entirely reigned by the comings and goings of power with the sole purpose of personal enrichment. Read around for the history of the CompañÃa Guipuzcoana for some early (colonial period) examples of this.
Don't make the mistake of interpreting venezuelan "collectivism" as anything of the sort you find in many of Europe's successful societies.
I agree with your general idea, but it's important to note Chavez very much promotes violence by citizens as long as it favors his own political movement. To be fair, he has recently put on a (hardly credible) show pointing to the contrary (by calling for the arrest of Lina Ron, for example), but it's not precisely significant; there's various of armed Chavista gangs that go around our various cities acting essentially as PSUV militia, to the point of defending "Chavista territory" in various cities, especially in Caracas; see, for example, what happened just last week when a peaceful protest by journalists came near the offices of Avila TV (one of our pro-Chavez channels, state-run of course). Or any of the various times the headquarters of Globovision (one of the few remaining broadcast TV channels that don't constantly and exclusively spread government propaganda) has been attacked with tear gas, fragmentation grenades, gunshots, etc.
The ONLY example of a truly oppressive "right-wing" government is ... () the national socialist party of Germany.
The Nazis were't socialist and neither was Hitler. And it's amusing that you try to equate them as being left-wing.
Just wondering ...
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals ... while eliminating individualism.
I suppose that you never heard of Augusto Pinochét? On September 11th 1973 he lead a bloody coup against the elected government of Chile and started a bloody oppression of the Chilean people while liberalising trade to allow the rich and powerful to become even more rich and powerful. At the time he got a lot of support by famous monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, who conveniently ignored his atrocities.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Venezuela's defense spending is just over $2B/year. Their oft-foe, Colombia, spends about $6B/year.
Except that Colombia faces a bitter civil war. What next, will you compare with Israel?
And the US spends over $400B/year.
No, you will settle for the US, which has 43 times the GDP.
And, FYI, your "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Huh? Care to elaborate?
Didn't bother to mention that New Orleans came in right after Caracas, with only one less murder per 100,000 people, did you?
Maybe because such a comparison would be a textbook example of bias - comparing the "murder capital" of country A with the capital and largest city of country B? If you wanted a faint hope of impartiality, you would have compared Caracas with Washington, DC, or with a large and important US city such as New York.
Or that Caracas's murder rate fell dramatically since their last survey.
Sources? Comparison to previous years? (A comparison of two years is a really, really lousy way to establish a trend)
More than any other country, Germany â" Nazi Germany â" then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.
The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn't look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn't become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.
I emphasized the important parts bold. The part in italics isn't true. The autobahn was mainly built with forced labor. That's why unemployment sank. Corporate profits boomed (later on) because of slave labor and war (see IG Farben for example).
You may also notice, that socialism != stalinism. You may also find this interesting.