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."
Crush the thought of dissent before they spill out into the streets. Actually shouldn't be promoting the use of violent video games to keep his citizens under control?
Om, nomnomnom...
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 what a danger Individualism is.
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.'
Just because a country purchases utilities of force says nothing. What they do with them says everything. If a country employs them for their own protection from genuine threats, there is nothing wrong with them building or purchasing automat kalashnikovs.
As for the video games promoting violence and altering the behavior of children, I do not believe this has been scientifically proved or disproved. And it may be hard if not impossible to do. I would recommend, when dealing with a populace, that you stick to common sense like 'acts of violence have been around long before video games' and point out that there is no statistical correlation between increased violence and increased violence in video games.
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.'
Right, because it would be horrible if your kids got video games that made them think. We're dealing with politicians, not the populace here. I feel horrible for Venezuelan gamers but I wonder if this doesn't have to do more with the feelings that games convey to people more so than the violence. I can't help but think that CoD and other games that tell the stories of men who fought and died to stop fascists like Hitler and Mussolini must make other dictators afraid of that sense of freedom being conveyed -- and the violence to stop them being employed! It's possible this ban is more so a significance of the importance of games as a cultural medium. That might be reaching a bit far but I would guess there's some truth to it. Probably just as simple as Chavez trying to appeal to the older generations for support and using video games as a scapegoat.
My work here is dung.
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo
But the yo-yo is a weapon: Inventors of the yo-yo
In the Philippines, the yo-yo was a weapon for over 400 hundred years. Their version was large with sharp edges and studs and attached to thick twenty-foot ropes for flinging at enemies or prey.
Do violent video games make kids more violent? Well, I never used to think so until my 6 year old started playing them. Almost immediately we noticed a change in his behavior and an increase in his aggressiveness. I fought it for a long time because I have been playing violent games since Doom and Quake and I totally didn't want to believe it...plus, I had always wanted my son to be able to play those games with me. So, after many arguments with my wife, and after strict guidance from his pediatrician, I caved and we put up the games. he HATED it but, I must admit, the temper tantrums ceased and he became a much more calm and respectful kid.
I know what you are thinking: "He stopped because he was playing too many games in general". No, actually we only cut out the violent games. He still plays the games that, whoever that legal group is that decides what is ok for kids to play, say it's ok for him to play. It sucks because I never wanted to be that guy, but here I am. I guess I need to hang up my Logitech Mouseman and get a trackball because I'm certainly only months away from carpal tunnel.
FML
Loading...
No. Your excuses are stupid.
Venezeula is much more tightly controlled. In order for your lame analogy to
work, it would have to be Bush or Obama that is encouraging the production of
pornography. The fact that such activity exists in America (or any other normal
democracy) is a reflection of the inherent CHAOS of a truely free society. People
at large are free to engage in conflicting activities.
You can have as many pornographers as you have anti-porn crusaders.
Either and both can thrive without government encouragement or interference.
Chavez is the pimp in this case. Neither Bush nor Obama are.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I like Americans and have seen more of the place than most natives, but your government is evil. For a true account of recent Venezuelan history please watch the video link I give with this comment. This amazing fly on the wall documentary was made by an Irish TV crew that happened to be in the presidential palace at the time of the American backed coup and filmed it for future folks to see the truth.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144
The most dangerous form of violence Venezuela faces is from the USA. History shows how many have died on this earth due to the policies of the US military, political, and industrial hegemony.
Mark Wood. Shropshire. England.
I used to assume that the left-wing dictators pretended to be left-wing merely as a tool of control, allowing them to be as selfish as they wanted, filling the Swiss bank account while pretending to have the people's interests at heart.
But having read a rather long (and definitely unsympathetic) biography of Stalin, I'm no longer so sure. I think many of them really believe in what they are doing, and are genuinely convinced that it is for the best.
For example, in the early years of WW2, Hitler broke his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia. Initially, this invasion was going very well for the Germans, and Stalin became convinced that the war was lost. He went to his dacha outside the city, and for a few days, none of his henchmen dared to give any orders because they couldn't run them past the big man. Eventually, the henchmen decided to go to Stalin's house.
I think this moment of vulnerability, in front of the men who could destroy him and had reason to do so, gives a lot of insight into the mind of Stalin. History remembers a monster, and of course this is correct, but nevertheless he was a rational man who believed he was doing the right thing for the USSR. When things went badly, he felt guilty for failing the people. He almost destroyed himself because of it.
Is this the action of a selfish man, considering only himself? I think not. Stalin's actions are entirely explained by the Marxist religion. In his mind, he did act for the people. He did help them! He freed them from the capitalists, the bourgeois and the imperialists. The mass executions, the war and the starvation were all necessary to achieve that end. Stalin was exactly what he claimed to be: a truly left-wing dictator.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez#Ch.C3.A1vez_and_the_media
Now I know you're saying "that just wikipedia" but maybe read the cites. Or do a google search. Educate your self. You might find that the US government has done far worse in acting out foreign policy goals... And publicly acknowledged it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change. Almost as bad as the Brits.
But I understand your need to deny anything that the US does that could be construed as bad since this might force you to take personal responsibility for your own life.
Remember, that's a translation of what Chavez said, rather than what he actually said. From the context, I wouldn't be surprised if the word he actually used has negative connotations similar to "loner," "isolation," and "exile" have to us.
Nope. In a free society, people are free to be as immoral as they want, as long as they don't infringe upon somebody else's rights
Does not compute.
I'm saying that a government that has no power other than to protect human rights, but that does a good job protecting human rights
Define human rights. If you say "not being fucked over by the megacorps" and "managing to live a decent life even if you're poor", then you're a socialist. If you say "not having the government meddle with my business" and "not having to pay most of my hard-earned paycheck to support those who didn't earn it" then you're a capitalist (of a certain kind).
There are more answers for Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.
[...] has no 'favors' to sell to corporations (the excesses of capitalism), and no means of seizing property for 'the state' (the excesses of socialism). The biggest reason our senators and executives are corrupt is because we've foolishly let them have more and more power to be corrupt WITH.
It seems to me you're making a case against corruption, and I agree - corruption is bad. But if you're implying that any kind of taxes (if that's what you mean by seizing property), or pro-business laws (like the existence of corporations, intellectual property, trade secrets and so forth) are inherently wrong, I disagree. Basically, I can't see a prosperous country existing without those.
Personally, my belief is that a system of government that gives maximum freedom, while protecting basic human rights (life, property, speech, etc.), will inevitably lead to capitalism, because that's the economic structure that is inherent in free choice
Kinda depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean a well-regulated free market economy that's not owned by special interest groups, I agree.
Sufficiently free society.
Sufficient as far as I know means something like good enough. Not compleet. My income is sufficient to live on does not mean I am rich or I am without money worries. A diet that is suffcient to survive on would hardly be called optimal.
So just how free should society be? Completly free?
One of the problems in the world is that we wants simple things, left/right, while politics tend to be very complex. Take Cuba, you had a system before Castro that had the majority of the public living in oppression, and after Castro, the exact same thing. Of course, the people who had it good before are complaing that now it is so much worse. Well duh!
That is what is fuels a lot of the violence in Iraq. You had a minority who controlled the country who suddenly had to give it all up and be ruled by the people they previously controlled. That sets bad blood. So the freedom of one means the restraint of another.
South American countries can be divided into two groups, those that are friendly to the US and can kill as many people as they want, with US backing and those that are not friendly to the US and get slammed for building hospitals.
Chavez is doing EXACTLY the same thing as the US has been trying to and a lot of european countries as well. So why does Chavez get so much more flak?
Why the mentioning of weapon purchases? The US spends far more on killing tech and its senators are trying for the same laws. Where is the link? Oh, there isn't one.
Chavez is running a country where the rich used to have their way completly. Now things changed and guess what, the rich don't like it and the US don't like it that a source of oil is no longer run by people who like them. It makes any reporting by any US citizen on Chavez in my opinion extremely suspect and this article is just a confimation of my susipicions.
Yes this law is stupid, but the reporting on it is so biased that its simpler message is lost in the propoganda.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.