I know this is the argument people think is the most compelling. But in reality, this is not hitting with the electorate. Calling him weird was much more effective. Even post Jan 6th!

Trump bad, Trump fascist, for some reason that’s preaching to the choir; the urgency is already felt with the people who are gonna feel it. The campaign could realize this, and could pivot and focus entirely on abortion and economy, because they won’t touch the war. But Kamala is currently stumping with Republicans on a “Trump Bad” ticket. Fuck the Cheneys.

Basically Trump = fascist, even if true, is ineffective, and is losing the election as Trump picks up immigration votes from minorities and protest votes from Muslims.

Naw fam, you tilted. Frfr.

Lol you think I’m white.

Next thing you know you’ll be telling me you can’t be racist cause of your white friends.

Uh hu, are the white supremacists who came up with the verbiage you don’t like in the room right now?

Yeah chattel slavery was super bad, maybe uniquely bad, that really doesn’t say anything about all slavery, which is also bad, no real reason to split hairs expect you specifically don’t want to be associated with white people, I guess. I would call that racism honestly. Would you call that Asian supremacy?

“OUR SLAVERY ISN’T AS BAD, AS THOSE YUCKY WHITES!”

I don’t know that Muslims are white tho… So that’s not very careful about language.

Yup totally! Just seems like a stretch from “cooking food is just making protein easier to digest” to, “chemically synthesizing elements that generally exist in a abundant state in the normal food source of an animal from vegetable sources and fortifying a plant based alternative that only gives macro nutrients we currentlt understand to be necessary for life”.

That being said, if any plant based hormones were cheaper than the meat based alternative (all meat based cat food is also fortified in this way), the industry would switch to plant based and not tell anyone.

I don’t generally split hairs on enslaving people to make a racist argument that my people are better in some way cause they might have treated their slaves better in some circumstances, that’s legit crazy. To the point where I try to reject proper verbiage because it paints people a color I don’t like.

If I had a choice to be a slave, would I prefer being an Asian woman being group raped by Asian men until death, would I rather be castrated and worked to death in persia, would I rather he worked to death an whipped on a plantation, would I rather be a house slave for the Ting (which by the way they said they were very nice to their slaves and I bet they was never a bad experience!), would I rather be a Chinese space to the Khan?

None of those sound good, none of them sound like a race is better than the other, you are making a racial argument based on the nuances of slavery and it’s kinda silly!

Racist.

Why? I mean I know, I just want to hear your explanation.

Do I put a value difference between the Atlantic slave trade/chattel slavery and the sexual slavery of the Vietnamese women, or Korean women? No I guess I don’t! Every version of slavery is both abhorrent and devalues human life, and a well kept slave is functionally still a slave.

I feel like you just ignored any examples that do meet your criteria cause you desperately want Western slavery to somehow be worse than Eastern slavery.

Honestly just sounds like exceptionalism to me. Again, sounds like you are a racist.

This is so interesting, honestly your arguments are so all over the place it’s hard to keep up. So you think the idea of humans as personal property was a Western invention that specifically the East Asians didn’t engage in? And you are using the transatlantic slave trade specifically to point that out? Are you arguing that Asian slavery is better because slaves occasionally had rights?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Asia

I think the slaves of the Khmer might disagree with you most recently. It’s well known the Tang dynasty in China kept Western slaves. What are you trying to say?

We’re just arguing semantics at this point, I’m not arguing the transatlantic African slave trade (a period lasting from the 16th to the 19th century you silly man) wasn’t largely European and evil, of course it was! Everyone in the West who engaged in it was terrible, it may have even been uniquely terrible.

The African slave trade has been active through the Arab Muslim world since antiquity, of the slave routes during the transatlantic period, three went inward into Asia via the Muslim world, the red sea, the Indian sea and the trans Saharan route (this route being used since antiquity).

Here I’ll link a Wikipedia for you! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world

Where do you think the Chinese were getting these magical Kunlun slaves.

I’m just responding to the weird ass arguments you’re making with all the century shit, the definition of chattel slavery isn’t the transatlantic slave trade, it’s using humans as a commodity, which again is and was worldwide. The transatlantic slave trade was chattel slavery, and Asia did participate in one of the most brutal parts of it through the Muslim world. None of this is a secret you know!

I think you are trying to exact a revisionist history on slavery and racism. Asians engaged in the chattel slavery you mention in the 18th century, they also engaged in just plain old slavery. There are still millions of slaves today in Asia. This is a weird argument to have with someone.

Chattel slavery was not a Western only concept, you may ask yourselves why the Asian continent is not filled with the children of black slaves. That’s because slaves that were imported to Asia were generally castrated. Used them up, let them die, get new ones, no breeding programs.

Whenever someone spends this much time trying to convince me that their feelings about other ethnic groups are not racist, because racism was invented by the West, I figure they are just trying to desperately hide their racism.

Edit: I’ll be specific for you, specially black slaves entered east Asia through the Arab corridor, the Arab states were the one’s collecting and castrating black slaves, many black slaves also made their way from European traders as well. I’ll even give you some verbiage to look up. The Kunlun slaves. There has been exploitation of indigenous dark skinned tribes for a long long time.

The games opening cut scene addresses this, was pretty good

Do you not think Asians engaged in chattle slavery? Is that the entire crux of you argument? There was chattel slavery in Asia, there was chattel slavery based on inter Asian racism due to ethnic differences.

Prejudice isn’t separate from racism, it fits in like a puzzle piece. You don’t even have a good reason for your argument, you just don’t like the word. Bro I think you might be racist.

No, you have a super secret definition of racism that doesn’t include people of similar ethnic groups not liking eachother because of past circumstances. Right?

Ethnicity is included in racism. A Korean or Chinese person who dislikes a Japanese person partially because of a cultural memory of occupation is still a racist. Even if there’s a historical justification for it, the strawman of a person you created in your head to dislike is nothing like the actual people of that ethnicity. Even if the ethnicity is close to yours. Even if you can point to examples of Chinese people doing things you don’t like currently. If you have a cultural dislike of a neighboring country, or different ethnic group, that’s still racism.

There are many regions that have vast histories of regional conflict in very small areas. It stil gets to be racist. Kurds and Armenians, everyone in Europe, Jews and Palestinians, Hondurans and Nicaraguans, the Tutsi and the Hutu in Africa.

You could point to other forms of hatred in a country, like the caste system in India (which was eventually used by the British as a census tool), as being non racist. But if it’s based in ethnicity, ESPECIALLY ETHNIC CONFLICTS, it’s racist.

Tldr, you don’t want to define yourself as racist so you created a new category that doesn’t include you.

It’s decent, extremely boss heavy, very linear. But the story is well done and it looks and feels good to play. If you’ve recently played Elden Ring tho, the terrain is going to feel like prison bars to you, very little exploration despite looking like you should be able to explore.

If you aren’t into souls like type games, wait for a sale. Reviews critical about the gameplay are mostly right.

Xenophobia, all of the response including the early comments of Lemmy were xenophobic leading to racist.

“How many Chinese people are playing the game to get those numbers so high”

“Of course it’s selling this much, Chinese are buying it”

“I wonder if we can trust the numbers coming out of China”

Like Chinese gamers make up huge percentage of sales and player base in general, yet this game in particular people are very concerned about the number of Chinese players.

Who cares if it’s selling well in China first, or China only, fuck off with this shit.

That’s not the definition of a strawman. We can discuss this philosophy from outside of it. That’s a thing that’s ok to do!

But you did construct a strawman which I addressed. Anecdotally the bit about pets for vegans being “companions” came directly from the person who posted the initial thread calling out rookie (which by the way, rookie seems like kinda of a jerk and probably shouldn’t be making decisions like these).

An animal is incapable of providing any consent, they are incapable of understanding the ethical choices a vegan may make, or the reasons behind it. The fact that instead of many viable alternatives, they selfishly choosing to keep an animal that would need to have those choices made for them is an ethical problem in their own philosophy.

These vegans choose to keep a cute kitty or puppy, even old and sick kitties and puppies are cute and rewarding, for selfish reasons. If you truly need to keep an animal, keep a vegan pet. Then you don’t need to participate in the food system, and a non-vegan pet owner can provide for the animal best suited to their lifestyle.

Like there is an understanding that engaging in the meat industry, even on the fringes, perpetuates that industry hurting animals. The same is true for pets, even good pet owners engage and support a system where by animals are exploited and hurt, even if it’s not THEIR animal. I don’t see why this is so hard, honestly.

I think that’s the point, the ethically vegan argument is not to own a pet that eats meat, and it’s odd these particular vegans in the channel couldn’t see it, and all the non vegans were pointing it out.

Pet ownership in general is not vegan, even if you gaslight yourself into calling them companions.