***A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.***

We have evidence that multiracial communities are literally never stable, common language is a result of common heritage, you leave out history which is convenient because this also pertains to values, economic life is irrelevant here and is inserted to remove the racial idea. You played a clever shifting of definitions

Also you cleverly copy pasted it from wikipedia that itself tries to run from the racial aspect by adding elements and placing them in front of common identity while also trying to somehow magically tie in identity.

Wiki -> "A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is distinct from a people,[1] and is more abstract, and more overtly political, than an ethnic group.[2] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[3]"

So what of this mandates homogeneity and common ancestry?

1) Common interests (interests are based on identity which is based on immutable characteristics)
2) common language, territory, ethnicity, psychological make up, are all elements of culture
3) Since culture is tied to ethnicity it is exclusive to that ethnicity
4) The end definition is important since wiki is being retarded and trying to derail ethnicity from nations definition. It is no more abstract than the ethnic group, it is the ethnic group. It is not a political formation, that is nationalism, however autonomy, unity and particular interests are reserved to an identity that is an ethnic group. No matter how you spin it ethnicity and common heritage are necessary.

the issue however may seem to arise from when we assume nations form, mine is that nations always existed however they were not called nations but rather tribes. or a common bloodline in the slavic family we have an ancient word called Rood (rod but hte O is accented) meaning essentially either family or nation, this then became modernised for clarity into Narod, and Rod. many languages have similar concepts added to them, additionally the genetic evidence, its all there. Empires may have formed multiethnically but all were forced to exterminate the minor ethnicity or lose that territory.

My definition of Naiton as such is:

***A group of people who by secondary identity identify with each other, through common language, ancestry, primary identity, geographical location and customs unite to create a specific and unique cultural group and forming a tertiary identity***

**Primary identity is identity that is formed based on immutabl traits, sex, race, and phenotype. It is the most basic identity along with name and individual traits and character**

**Secondary identity is identity that is socially established, and it is the beggining of small group identities as well, common customs appear, values, etc. it is also mandatory that it is derived from the former, as a common point from which it starts.**

**tertiary identity is intergroup identity that is based on the former two, this is when culture arises**

eh enough of me reeing and jumping around in circles, stress lack of sleep does that to you

also i see the issue, it depends how you approach what a nation is, when you approach that a nation is from the state you get that ethncity doesnt matter and simply the passport does, however if you approach the nation as in it is a group that has formed and therefore must have a past, it is not a top down but a bottom up approach to the definition, you get what I have come to conclude. Generally identity, genetics, history, human development, group dynamics, etc. demonstrate that the bottom up approach is more appropriate than the idea that Nation = country. Which is IMO on wikis part purposefully subversive and pushes towards multikulti

additionally there is another issue of word origins. It might be quora but this is additionally important. "Ethnicity comes from the Greek “ethnos” which describes a race or people from which you originate. Nationality (i.e. nation) comes from the Latin word for “birth”, i.e. the tribe you were born into"

All of your examples however constitute modern ethnic categories, or nationlities and not distinct racial groups. Slavs are made up of several different racial and genetic groups, especially those invaded by the Mongols. German is also an identity based on a modern country and not a single ethnic or racial group. It's distinctly American to think you could categorize it as a genetically hemogeneous whole

Genetic drift between the Celts, Anglos, Saxons, and you might be able to figure this one out *Anglo-Saxons* is common

That last one is a particularly good example because it's a merging of the native people of the continent, and the saxons from Saxony, now a part of Germany

The idea that these groups try to maintain hemogeneity is a weird claim when it requires extreme top down authoritative control to force genetic bottlenecking like that. Which could lead to breeding in weakness and wiping out entire populations but disease. You have to stop people from interbreeding. Take for example all the white dudes who pine after Asian girls, yellow fever

It seems you've taken this position not out of genuine investigation into anthropology, biological, archeology, history or sociology, but because the narrative is politically convenient, which I would suggest you re-examine that idea

Also my definition doesn't come from Wiki it comes from Stalin

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1

This work is titled "Marxism and the National Question" which Stalin takes the time to firstly descriptively investigate what nations are as they exist, and not what they *should be*

It might be worth it to read that beginning part so you get where I am coming from

Daily Question 🔖
Considering how video games have been dumbed down and simplified over the years, will there be any games that till cater to people who like highly complex games that requires high amounts of investment 10 years from now?
@everyone

Why is this a question

^

I hope so

Not everything needs to be geo political

But, the degeneration of video games is emblematic of the degeneration of art in society in general

Of course, If the market asks for it there will always be people that will provide such games

yes

@Earl of Morrrrgantown these kind of games still exist

also just turn up the difficulity lmao

^
Just compare Daggerfall or Morrowind to Skyrim and you will see that games get less complex to appeal to a wider, younger audience

The cult of the market is destroying everything that once was beautiful and sacred

I don’t think video games have been simplified but the ones that are popular are simpler, if you do some digging you can find some really detailed ones

I do not believe that market forces should dictate everything

^

up to both upper posts

@ritasuma Its not difficulty, its complexity.

@Earl of Morrrrgantown some people say bloodborne is just that

When the motivation is only money, the quality of the product is poor

I don't think Paradox Interactive is going to be as good they are now in the future

Games have become big business

there are also games like 'the witness' which is essentially a giant 3D puzzle exploration game @Earl of Morrrrgantown

Yes, Jonathan Blow is great

He has the right philosophy about all this

ive been meaning to play that game, havent gotten around to it yet

The only AAA game that I consider complex is Kingdom Come Deliverance