I'm not sure what that has to do with my rebuttal? I was confronting the claim that is now deleted, that China has never had a problem with racism.

I'm not claiming people aren't being racist or xenophobic about this game. I was just explaining the difference between the western concept of racism and the history of ethnic conflict in east Asia.

the Wikipedia definition wrong then? You should have it edited.

Lol, depending on context yeah. If you read further into the article you'd find that it's not a black and white subject.

"While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science"

Because westerners are so obsessed with race as an inherent truth, ethnicity and race have evolved to be similes in the English language. This is similar to how sex and gender are often used as similes, and that works in most cases, but it's not appropriate in scientific context.

Your pedantry

It's not pedantry when the argument is specifically about differentiating between racism and ethnic conflict.

My first statement was a rebuttal to someone claiming that racism hasn't ever been a problem in China.

As does our scientific understanding of what constitutes race and ethnicity and its all more social construct than anything well defined.

Race is entirely a social construct, equating it to ethnicity is just wildly inaccurate and does nothing but validate the theory of racial science.

Ok but seems like a distinction without a difference.

I mean the distinction is fairly self evident. I as an Asian person cannot hold racial prejudices against other Asians, but can have ethnic prejudices.

Neither racism, nor ethnic racism,

Man, you guys just don't understand that race is not an actual idea people outside the west utilize. Race is exclusively a western concept used to generalize people outside of Europe.

have anything to do with video games

I didn't say they were? I was responding to a claim that someone else made and then deleted.

There's a pretty clear delineation from racism and ethnic prejudice. One is a classification system used to loosely categorize people by general region and skin tone. The other is actually based on ethnic groups, and tends to actually be based on historical context.

Defined under the social construct of racism, a Han Chinese person and a Manchurian are the same "race", they're just Asian or "yellow".

Ethnic prejudice is often just as bad as racism, but is generally based on actual historical context instead of a defunct "science", that was only created to justify slavery.

Enjoy your champagne racism.

Lol, you do realize that you are the one demanding the globe to view ethnic conflict through the lens of race "science "?

seems today's pattern in general. Such projects go for something hardly achievable, don't achieve it, give us all that feeling of passive frustration, and divert attention.

I think it's kinda a byproduct of venture capital funding. With the Fed prioritizing low interest rates for the last decade, investors are a lot more willing to stick their money in yolo financial schemes.

There are plenty of places on the planet which could use additional electricity, water, wired connectivity, normal roads.

Pssh, why build physical things when you can just gamble on things like virtual currency, virtual intellect, or even virtual reality....... /s

Or, say, security from armed apes with UN membership, like Azerbaijan.

Lesser Armenia has really flown off the handle lately. I don't really know why they have UN membership, Azerbaijan is basically "what if the Saudi tried to build Singapore on the Caspian sea".

Racism isn't exactly the right word, but China and the rest of east asia have thousands of years of historical ethnic prejudices. It's just not interpreted as "racism" because it's more complicated than the color of your skin, and that's typically what westerners can wrap their heads around at any given point.

The key point about wartime economies is that they don't actually increase quality of life for the people

That's debatable dependent on the situation and the timeframe you're looking at. You'll usually see an increase in domestic production and consumption as a general by-product of lower unemployment.

However, they are still going to run into the guns vs butter problem. Unless they actually seize Ukraine and extract more wealth from it than they spent acquiring it, their investments into military infrastructure are going to be losses.

America will hang out in the hopes an opportunity will come of it, as well as a show of force to China.

What kind of opportunity? The only reason there's any drama happening in the first place is because China is attempting to unilaterally reshape the very idea of the laws of the sea.

There wouldn't be a perceived need to provide a show of force unless there was provocation to begin with.

You don't have to be patriotic or even American to understand that willfully ignoring international laws in which you are a signatory, is problematic for international relations.

If it's right and just to criticize America flaunting international law, then we should be non biased enough to be critical of other nations when they do the same.

They've migrated to a wartime economy, which gives you a lot of command over the economy. They're currently doing a careful dance of increasing their money supply, while trying to stabilize inflation using what foreign currency reserves and income they have.

The biggest thing keeping their economy going is the price of oil, which is hovering around 80-90$ a barrel. The vast majority of this is being gobbled up by the government via their national wealth fund.

So long as heightened domestic productivity is maintained for the war, and the price of oil is higher than 60-65$ they could retain solvency for years.

A real economic collapse won't be felt until the price of oil bottoms out, or if they attempt to transition out of a war time economy.

Just what Comcast needs, a fleet of very slow cruise missiles.

Can't wait for them to park their buoyant IED router above my house if I don't upgrade to the game day package.

One might wonder why America feels the need to help escort an allied nation through their own exclusive economic zone in the first place? It's almost like there is a member of unclos that isn't adhering to international law or something?