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."
Individualism? Oh, no!
Maybe banning violence would help to cut down on the violence in that country.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.'
What the hell does this have to do with the actually meat of the issue? NOTHING. Nice troll.
Sent from your iPad.
Maybe if there were MORE violent videogames there, there wouldn't be so much violence. In the US, the most violent places are the slums, places where the folks living there can't afford videogames.
Violent crime has dropped in the US since videogames were invented.
OTOH I played Quake with my daughters on our home network when they were teenagers, and my youngest (now 22) tried to beat the hell out of my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago. Maybe Quake is responsible? ;)
Free Martian Whores!
was never about actually reducing crime, it is about enforcing morality on others and controlling what media people are allowed to consume.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
You heard it here first!
RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
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.
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.
The United States should take the side of the oppressed there, not shake hands with CastroLite.
Because the United States has such a great track record of installing democracy and non-oppressive leaders in foreign nations....
Why can't we leave others alone and worry about problems in our own country?
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
That way Fox News will be forced to calling him a socialist supporter of Hugo Chavez and close one of the last places that man can get any airtime.
Because the United States has such a great track record of installing democracy and non-oppressive leaders in foreign nations....
Ever heard of Germany or Japan?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Frequently; because there aren't a whole lot of other examples...
The people doing this are the United Socialist Party. Hugo Chavez is a champion of workers' rights, a bane to American-style capitalist corporations, heavily influenced by Marx, and a socialist to the core.
He is also the democratically elected leader of his country.
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.
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.
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...
Guess I live outside of "civilization." Don't worry, I'm just as happy having a right to self-defense.
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.
The people of Germany and Japan did this and succeeded DESPITE US interference, not because of it.
They wanted it to begin with and we opened the door for them. This is very different than the too many to mention examples of where the US meddled and it was not wanted and nothing changed, and in a few cases got worse.
Remember... Sadam was installed by the US as well :)
It's tragic. South America was always such a peaceful place before those damned video games came in!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
Hitler was also a champion of workers' and farmers' rights and was democratically elected, undeniably influenced (negatively) by Marx, and a socialist to the core. The "S" in NSDAP stood for socialist, you know. Here's a pop quiz. Can you briefly state the difference between fascist and socialist (minus any hyperbolae)? Hint: it's a trick question.
As for "bane to American-style capitalist corporations", I simply think that Chavez simply favors his own corporations, state run or in cahoots with the state, as is the case with both socialism and fascism.
That's the most propagandistic summary I have seen in a while. Chávez has been democratically elected and Venezuela has a freer press than Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan and other US allies, including puppet governments like Iraq and Afghanistan where the US could simply tell the leaders to enact laws and impose freedom of the press by decree. Not only that, TV stations actively collaborated with a coup d'état against Chávez, and instead of rounding up the criminals and sending them to jail or to the firing squad, he left them in place, and waited for the licence of one station to expire.
I've spent the better part of this afternoon commenting here and there in this article and I'm exhausted, so I'll be brief, although I'd certainly prefer to reply more extensively.
I don't know anything, to be honest, about the situation regarding press freedoms in Colombia, Pakistan and Mexico. However, it's ridiculous to imply journalism is just fine* and dandy down here.
Furthermore, I'm curious: how, exactly, does a TV station collaborate with a military coup?
* you have to select "Venezuela" in the combo box here to get the listing.
In America," Obama says, "we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations."
- Barack Obama,
Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995
You forgot Poland.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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.
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)
This article is pure FUD and troll. The ChÃvez government bought Russian weapons ? Yeah. But why ? Oh, that's a question the anonymous coward will not ask. It may have to do with the fact USA put an embargo of selling repair pieces of military equipment to Venezuela, forcing ChÃvez to replace all the previous, USA-made equipment, with new Russian one, *just to maintain the level of its military*. Not to increase it.
The ones increasing the military in South America, who even bomb beyhond their border, who threatens their neighbours to do it again, is not Venezuela. It's not ChÃvez. It's Colombia, and the fascist, USA-allied, Uribe.
As for defending traditional games, and especially games that require more than one player (as opposed to most video games, of course, not all of them), it's a very wise move. Too much TV and video games *are* doing bad to people. I'm very glad my parents limited my TV and video game time as a child, making me read books, solve puzzle, play with legos, or a board game with my siblings. Any wise government would advise the same. As for yoyo, it teaches patience and dexterity.
So, what's wrong with ChÃvez ? What's the reason for this bashing ? That, being president of a violent country (that was the case when he arrived in power, Caracas was already a very dangerous city), he tries to attack the problem by several edges at the same time ? The police reform, the new reeducation through arts (music, theater, ...) policy, the Mision Vuelven Caras to train those people into useful jobs, and also, a very important point against violence : education.
And preventing children from being exposed to the most violent games and movies is part of the non-violent education.
I don't like bans. I'm not sure it'll do any good. But with the dreadful situation ChÃvez inherited from the previous, corrupt, neoliberal presidents, I fear he doesn't have any choice. The most important question, to which the anonymous coward has no beginning of answer, is "what is the limit of the ban ?"