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

im getting a copy for my mom, who introduced me to myst when i was about 5yo

At least one that I bought recently

If I list all of my favourite games of all time, I realize that almost all of them were made by only a few people

Certainly teams of less than 10

@Earl of Morrrrgantown ehhh
complex games do exist