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 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...
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.