China creates video game simulating combat against US troops

Since the democracy vs. dictatorship issue popped up, I thought I might blurt out a slightly worn catchphrase...

Believing in democracy is not the same thing as believing that the outcomes of democratic elections are ideal for particular issues. But the fact that we have elections means that, for one, politicians are to some extent accountable for what they do. It takes an X, not a revolution, to remove an incompetent or abusive politician. And, as people are a part of the democratic process and have democratic values instilled, they are less likely to submit to authoritarian rule, should that day come.

For example, I support the opposition right now in Sweden. That doesn't mean I support Håkan Juholt as a dictator.
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course not.

But it's still not a dictatorship. And there are a lot of problems that dictatorships have that democracies simply don't. Starting with the obvious: a severe lack of freedom.
Click to expand...

Look at the recent spike in incarceration in US prisons.

Ziggurat said:
They can want it all day long, it's still not happening.
Click to expand...

It takes a while to lift one billion people from poverty

Ziggurat said:
Where was China 50 years ago? Oh, that's right: starving millions of their own citizens because of disastrous decisions made by the dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what?

Ziggurat said:
The beauty of democracy is that even if the "power elite" don't care about what the people want, what the people want still matters, and still has an effect. Of course, that's simply not true in a dictatorship: if the power elite don't care about what the people want, then it truly doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Not exactly true.
In both cases the elite has to care about what people want, with maybe some difference between the two systems, as even in "moderndictatorships" like China the power elite can be ousted as it is happening in many countries of the M.E.

Ziggurat said:
It's like I'm sitting in a college campus coffee shop again. Tell me one more time about your glorious plans for the proletariat.
Click to expand...

Uh??
 
Pardalis said:
And now they've elected a mulatto president. It tells you alot about what kind of society would allow such change in so little time.

Meanwhile, China still has no elections, and no freedoms.
Click to expand...

Wait some 50 or 60 years.
The US started his technical progress earlier than China

Pardalis said:
Meanwhile, China still has no elections, and no freedoms.
Click to expand...

False.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Since the democracy vs. dictatorship issue popped up, I thought I might blurt out a slightly worn catchphrase...

Believing in democracy is not the same thing as believing that the outcomes of democratic elections are ideal for particular issues. But the fact that we have elections means that, for one, politicians are to some extent accountable for what they do. It takes an X, not a revolution, to remove an incompetent or abusive politician. And, as people are a part of the democratic process and have democratic values instilled, they are less likely to submit to authoritarian rule, should that day come.

For example, I support the opposition right now in Sweden. That doesn't mean I support Håkan Juholt as a dictator.
Click to expand...

Nice interesting description just out of Western books.
Later on I will point out about a few cracks in your explanation about democracy good Chinese system bad frame of mind.
 
Shrek said:
Look at the recent spike in incarceration in US prisons.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. The US is bad, therefore everyone is the same. Spare me the tiresome moral equivalency.

It takes a while to lift one billion people from poverty
Click to expand...

Especially if your first try starves millions of them. Or maybe that's a feature: less people you have to lift up.

Yes, and what?
Click to expand...

Hey, you're the one who wanted to bring up conditions 50 years ago, not me.

In both cases the elite has to care about what people want, with maybe some difference between the two systems, as even in "moderndictatorships" like China the power elite can be ousted as it is happening in many countries of the M.E.
Click to expand...

And what happens when the people try to oust the elite and the elite don't want to be ousted? Why, in China, you get massacres. And in the US, we elect new politicians.

Nope, no real difference there at all.
 
Shrek said:
Wait some 50 or 60 years.
The US started his technical progress earlier than China
Click to expand...

You think technical progress is what led to black Americans' emancipation?


False.
Click to expand...

Do they have freedom of expression? Do they have free elections? Do they have freedom to manifest and political agency? Do they have freedom of religion?
 
Last edited:
Shrek said:
Nice interesting description just out of Western books.
Later on I will point out about a few cracks in your explanation about democracy good Chinese system bad frame of mind.
Click to expand...

Will this include the part about Chairman Mao Tse-tung being the never setting red sun in our hearts?
 
Shrek said:
Later on I will point out about a few cracks in your explanation about democracy good Chinese system bad frame of mind.
Click to expand...

Democracy is the worst except for all the others. Communism is the worst.

At least China finally recognized Communism as a junk idea from the West. After killing sixty million people.
 
Virus said:
Democracy is the worst except for all the others. Communism is the worst.

At least China finally recognized Communism as a junk idea from the West. After killing sixty million people.
Click to expand...

And embraced fascism instead. Improvement, Chinese style.

McHrozni
 
Virus said:
Yeah still. I doubt anyone misses the bad old days.
Click to expand...

The only significant differance between fascism and communism is that communism creates economic ruin, while fascism creates great opportunities for correctly placed people and allows for a miniscule amount of wealth to trickle down to the people. This is exactly the picture we see in China today. Other differences are almost exclusively cosmetic.

That said, fascism is indeed better than communism in the same sense as leukemia is better than cancer of the pancreas.
(pancreatic cancer is the most lethal and one of the most painful cancers, whereas many leukemias are managable and even curable)

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Pretty much everyone in China benefited from the market reforms.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Since the democracy vs. dictatorship issue popped up, I thought I might blurt out a slightly worn catchphrase...

Believing in democracy is not the same thing as believing that the outcomes of democratic elections are ideal for particular issues. But the fact that we have elections means that, for one, politicians are to some extent accountable for what they do. It takes an X, not a revolution, to remove an incompetent or abusive politician. And, as people are a part of the democratic processd have democratic values instilled, they are less likely to submit to authoritarian rule, should that day come.

For example, I support the opposition right now in Sweden. That doesn't mean I support Håkan Juholt as a dictator.
Click to expand...

1) Even in so called democracies, government adopt stances many times in blatant contrast with the will of the people (in the UK almost during all the time from 2003 til now the population was against the intervention)
2) parties and media do a great job filtering potential candidates
3) You can not choose different (groups of )candidates for different issues, you have to choose one candidate/party/administration for all, and most of the issues relevant to discussion may not discussed in detail during campaign
4) It is difficult to enter and be known in politics unless you have support from some big association or industry, and here comes the mafia
5) It is difficult to start your own party
6) Most of the people are not just interested in politics unless they have a urgent reason to be involved. Or unless they are after power
 
Shrek said:
1) Even in so called democracies, government adopt stances many times in blatant contrast with the will of the people (in the UK almost during all the time from 2003 til now the population was against the intervention)
2) parties and media do a great job filtering potential candidates
3) You can not choose different (groups of )candidates for different issues, you have to choose one candidate/party/administration for all, and most of the issues relevant to discussion may not discussed in detail during campaign
4) It is difficult to enter and be known in politics unless you have support from some big association or industry, and here comes the mafia
5) It is difficult to start your own party
6) Most of the people are not just interested in politics unless they have a urgent reason to be involved. Or unless they are after power
Click to expand...

1) Representative democracy =/= direct democracy. In a representative democracy, the people delegate their power to a number of politicians. Going after polls on every decision is unworkable, especially in larger countries.
2) This is one reason why many countries have have (by law) independent media, like BBC in UK, SVT, P1, P2, P3, P4 in Sweden, etc. Bias in these channels would be a tremendous scandal on its own.
3) Yes, that is a flaw with representative democracies, but only when compared to Nirvana.
4) Not every country is Italy. In Sweden, many candidates get known by being active in the party youth organizations.
5) ... And? Hello, Nirvana?
6) Yes, this is another reason for having representative, rather than direct democracies.
 
i wonder if the russians or Arab nations also worry whenever n US game hits the market where ou play a US soldier fighting Russians or Arabs or other usual bad guys.

hyporcisy at its best.
 
Nerd said:
Link to article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/glorious-mission-chinese-video-game_n_863166.html

The United States Army developed a video game series called "America's Army" - simulating realistic combat. I guess it was aimed to help educate/recruit/act as propaganda/etc. The enemies in the game were of some fictitious European country.

So, China began to develop its own version of the game called "Glorious Mission", but get this: the enemy the People's Liberation Army is targeting is the US Army. It's one thing for a private developing group to create a video game with a real country as an enemy... but for a government to do so?

Just goes to show how great Sino-American relations are right now. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess it's not very realistic -- how popular would be a game where you had about a 1 in 20 chance of winning in a 1-on-1 engagement, a 1-in-400 chance of winning a squad-level encounter, or a, well, pretty much 1-in-infnity chance of winning a platoon-level or bigger encounter?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I'm going to guess it's not very realistic -- how popular would be a game where you had about a 1 in 20 chance of winning in a 1-on-1 engagement, a 1-in-400 chance of winning a squad-level encounter, or a, well, pretty much 1-in-infnity chance of winning a platoon-level or bigger encounter?
Click to expand...

you mean like playing Battlefield without having a tank, jet or Helicopter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom