Google Translated:
> 4. It is not allowed to promote the "Global Service" function in the game. If there is any, you should go offline and delete the relevant function in time;
Not sure how accurate the source is or how accurate the translation is. The word Promote is in there, so maybe it's related to marketing (including box art, etc)?
I would agree if the original name was China/Chinese Virus. The problem is that, that particular naming is targeted at china because they were being twats by making rumors/propaganda blaming America.
So I feel that the people using that name are using it as a middle finger, which I don't agree with. That doesn't make the words itself racist, but the usage of it racist.
I hope that makes sense?!?
Wuhan is just the place of origin and no one battered an eyelid to it when it was first named Wuhan Virus or Wu Flu. I've never seen it used negatively.
I never head anybody calling it "Chinese Virus" until right after Chinese officials were found to be spreading rumors that the virus came from a US military operation. When those rumors started, the Chinese ambassador to the US was called in to get a scolding and the president immediately started using "Chinese Virus" very purposely.
In other words, it's simply the mildest justified revenge, without even a claim that anything was intentional.
Also, I'm now in Asia and everybody around me calls it COVID or Corona.
Do you have a source for this?
To be clear when I say "most of asia" I don't mean, every country, and every news outlet. But that it's not uncommon.
I've seen news in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, all refer to it as Wuhan Virus.
Singapore (where I live) I don't recall seeing it referred to as Wuhan Virus since maybe mid-march.
In any case if someone refers to it as Chinese/China Virus, I completely agree that it's racist. But Wuhan is the origin, and the original name given. Renaming has probably only hurt china more as people are very angry with the WHO and ccp.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Wuhan%20virus,SAR...
> "a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person."
and gives the following example
> "the stigma of having gone to prison will always be with me"
This is an example of rational stigma. For example if you know someone who went to prison for robbery, they would have a rational stigma associated with them when they try to apply for a job at a bank. Not an oxymoron.
Stigmatization is the act of creating stigmas. Maintaining them. And that is very clearly not rational. To be rational, you'd re-evaluate the person from the ground up before each event. Sure, being in prison would still be a factor, one of many. But stigma assumes that this factor alone defines the whole outcome, which is irrational.
Yeah... their sources aren't exactly ideal.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-d...
"Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu, Rift Valley fever), people’s names (e.g. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Chagas disease), species of animal or food (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, monkey pox), cultural, population, industry or occupational references (e.g. legionnaires), and terms that incite undue fear (e.g. unknown, fatal, epidemic)."
Tedros also tried to get Robert Mugabe as WHO's goodwill ambassador:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mononegavirales#Order_organiza...
Informally that number is way higher.
It's as common to use the original geographical source of the virus in the name as it is to use some chemistry/biology/latin driven name or in your case an acronym.
Following formal guidelines in scientific papers and other formal discourse is another matter. Newspapers, social media, interpersonal communication, etc isn't a big deal IMO. People know what they are referring to. That's all that matters in that sort of language, humans are smart enough to figure out context and intention. Especially since there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with using relevant identifiers like geography.
Trying to constantly redefine and re-purpose certain words/phrases in absolute terms is an arbitrary and endless fight against the reality of everyday language. It's ultimately a giant waste of time that only adds more personal/political/ideological baggage than it removes, to what common-sense was already more than sufficient to handle. It's also just as often used to 'spin' and attack people and purposefully misinterpret people's intentions and context of usage, despite it being obvious to the rational reader, as it is about 'protecting' others. It then makes us question your intentions in 'correcting' them as much as theirs in using it, and we're no better off in terms of clarity. The less of it, the better.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-...
Imagine if the Chinese army could materialize new media realities.
One can object to a use of language that is likely to stir racist sentiment against Chinese people, and more broadly Asian people (as we very much have seen especially early in the outbreak), without implying support for the CCP.