That’s not true, no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim.

You are conflating the elemental molecule of iron with the finished product of an alloy of carbonized iron aka as steel.

Yes, there isn’t a molecular difference between the iron found in sand vs the iron found in rock ore. However, the medium in which you harvest your iron and how you’re able to heat that iron, dictates the quality not your final product.

Lol, my dude. No one is claiming that modern japanese steel is of poor quality.

Im speaking of the time period contemporary with the accusation. You know, how arguments typically work…

Do you think the guns Japanese Samurai used were made from steel refined from sand?

Just pointing out this one because it’s funny. Yes, a lot of the early firearms made in Japan were still made from iron sand (Satetsu). Which was the main source of iron in Japan until the 16th century.

According to whom?

The reason why Japanese iron is inferior is because of the source of the iron itself, they utilized iron sand instead of rock ore. Rock ore can be made up to 90% ferrous material while the iron sand contains as little as 2%.

This means when you smelt your source material into blooms of iron and slag, the blooms made from sand iron were much smaller. Instead of utilizing a single bloom to make a sword, the Japanese had to work several blooms together. Which is much more labour intensive, and can lead to a lot of imperfections in the final product.

This is why katanas were made out of so little material, and had to be handled with care. They were much more fragile pieces than similar swords made in Korea and China at the time.

Plus, the Japanese developed their iron working much later than their mainland contemporaries, as they never independently invented furnace technology. The technology for furnaces was imported, most likely from the Korean peninsula.

I think the first sentence is probably enough to make anyone not afflicted with a eurocentric brain want to palm some face.

I think excusing it as a “not serious” statement is dangerous, as a lot of people even on Lemmy won’t second guess it.

The belief that the west is the origin of all science and culture is surprisingly pervasive, especially in the tech industry.

Command Senior Chief

The person who came up with the scheme is also the most senior NCO on the ship. All the enlisted people in charge of monitoring that activity knew, they just knew not to ask questions.You would be surprised how much pull an E-8 or E-9 has in the military.

Yeah… This is a bit sketchy. Pharmaceuticals aren’t just something that an amateur can make by following step by step instructions. Even something as simple as baking a cake requires some basic experience to know when things are going right or wrong.

Even maintaining the calibration on a CLR requires some background experience, let alone building and programming one all on your own. With your actual reactor being as small as a mason jar, it means the margin for error is going to be small as well.

This is neat for people with a background in chemistry, but I don’t really see it as anything but dangerous for the general public. They also are fudging their math a bit to make things seem a lot cheaper. Reagents can be really cheap at bulk prices, but you have to spend the time looking for them, and they aren’t equating the cost of a trained chemist making these medications.

My point was that he’s always been an extremist right winged nut job, he’s just letting people see it now.

If you look at his work history, the people he hung out with, and how he’s run his businesses, it’s all very consistent with far right libertarian ideology. He’s always been against regulation, he’s always been anti union, and he started a business with Peter Thiel.

Not much has changed, except he now believes his cult of personality is strong enough to withstand media criticisms.

While he was always an asshole, everyone has some ratio of bad/good. In the early/mid 2010s he was able to keep enough of a lid on things that he had a positive reputation with among both the public and investors.

Back then he still had his handler/business mommy Mary Beth Brown. She had basic control over his scheduling and publicity outreach since he started Tesla. In 2014 he canned her after she asked for a raise, he’s been handling his own pr and schedule ever since.

The problem with assuming that this is a recent change in personality is that it requires ignoring all his prior reported behaviour. It ignores how much media marketing actually changes our perceptions of powerful people.

No Elon did not become an asinine child overnight, he’s been that way the whole time. He just believes he’s now rich enough that he doesn’t have to pretend to be a different person. No JFK Jr did not become an insane person because he watched too much fox news, he’s literally been eating roadkill since he was a child.

All of these wealthy and powerful people have an entire system working for them dedicated to protecting their public image.

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

Nah, just their legacy…

no real reason to split hairs

Not ignoring one of the largest crimes against humanity = splitting hairs… Interesting.

don’t want to be associated with white people, I guess. I would call that racism honestly. Would you call that Asian supremacy?

You do realize you are the only person separating people based on skin color? My wife is German, I don’t hold her country’s past against her. But, if she was a Holocaust denier, or attempted to become a Nazi apologist, things would be different.

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

The internalized guilt is strong with you…

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

Islam is a religion you idiot, it’s not a race, or an ethnicity…Also, you are the only person legitimately utilizing skin color to categorize people. I don’t care what your pigmentation is, that’s not the thing that makes you a racist moron.

don’t generally split hairs on enslaving people to make a racist argument that my people are better in some way

We’re not talking about modern people, nor are we blaming modern people for their ancestors behaviour. We are examining the crimes historic people did to other historic people, which do vary in different degrees in scale and violence.

The racism you are accused of isn’t because of your people’s past, it’s because you are still utilizing the same racist classification system and justifications that led to their crimes in the first place.

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?

Lol, a lot of writing to admit you just don’t care about the suffering caused by chattel slavery in America. I didn’t claim that there weren’t horrific versions of slavery in east Asia, though you are exaggerating certain aspects. What I claimed is that there is a difference in scope and cruelty, compared between the two, which is just a fact.

none of them sound like a race is better than the other,

Lol, still about race for you huh.

you are making a racial argument based on the nuances of slavery and it’s kinda silly!

Lol, ethnicity does not = race you fucking idiot.

The whole point of this is that race is construct that can’t be used to actually examine the ethnic prejudices that happened in a specific area at a specific time.

Racist

Says the person defending an argument developed by white supremacists…

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.

Lol, so the amount of people, the amount of violence, the amount of time it’s practiced, and for what reasons are all meaningless to you?

So if you had a choice of being from Africa and taken from their homeland and forced into perpetual slavery in the US, where your children could be whipped to death in front of you, or sold down the river for no reason. Or you could be in indebted servitude to a rich family in the tang dynasty who used you as a doorman, but you still got to go home to your family who weren’t enslaved at the end of the day.

Both choices would be equal for you? That’s just a false equivocation that is willfully ignorant to the actual human suffering that’s occurred.

This is just as bad as people claiming that the Irish had it just as bad in America as people in chattel slavery in the South because they were both technically “enslaved”.

you desperately want Western slavery to somehow be worse than Eastern slavery.

Because it’s not even close… The chattel slavery that occurred in the Americas is widely regarded by historians as some of the worst forms of slavery in recorded history. By what ever criteria you are ranking it, whether it be by volume, lack of rights, deaths, or in human suffering.

This is not a controversial or even drastic claim. The technology and social hierarchy that allowed them to transport and organize that many people into chattel slavery was even possible prior to the transatlantic slave trade.

feel like you just ignored any examples that do meet your criteria

I’ve responded with a clear explanation to all of your ridiculously racist claims this whole time. Even providing sources that explain exactly how you came up with your assumptions. You on the other hand have ignored every question and have failed to explain how your claims are pertinent to the conversation.

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

Ahh yes, a rebuttal that disproves a highly inaccurate claim… Exceptionalism.

Again, how do I seem racist? I already said east asians can be racist, I’ve already said they’ve had slaves. The only thing I am denying is your inaccurate use of the word racism under specific context, and denying your clearly inaccurate claims African slave trade happening in East Asia during a specific dynasty.

You on the other hand have made generalized claims about race this whole time, in an effort to conflate all slavery as being equally bad.

You don’t seem like a racist, based on your claims you are a racist. Go kick rocks.

So you think the idea of humans as personal property was a Western invention that specifically the East Asians didn’t engage in?

Slavery has occurred in nearly every society throughout human history, the abnormality which is unique to chattel slavery is the legal system that evolved to protect the owners right in totality. Even in ancient examples that most closely resemble the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas, there were still social contracts that prevented the enslaved from the levels of dire abuse African slaves experienced in the Americas.

Are you arguing that Asian slavery is better because slaves occasionally had rights?

Are you claiming that all slavery is equally bad? That being an indentured servant is the same as chattel slavery? Seems like a pretty convenient attitude for someone who is trying to distance themselves from the largest example of chattel slavery in recorded history.

think the slaves of the Khmer might disagree with you most recently.

Lol, once again equating two totally separate societies and cultures as the same because racist from hundreds of years ago labeled anyone east of turkey as Asian. Cambodia is in South East Asia…

It’s crazy how you don’t see that trying to justify your position with race science is in fact racist. What exactly do you believe validates your examples of Arab slave trade and the Khmer being pertinent to a conversation about East Asia?

well known the Tang dynasty in China kept Western slaves.

Lol, no it really isn’t. You are utilizing your preconceptions about skin color and projecting it to a misinterpretation of a mystical story from the 9th century.

When someone from the tang dynasty is speaking about “westerns” they aren’t talking about Europeans, the Arab world, or Africa. They are usually referring to places immediately west of China or West China. In the case of the Kunlun, they are more than likely talking about modern day Malaysia and Cambodia.

Here is a good breakdown of the Kunlun in China, with sources.

Again, you are applying your preconceptions of racial science to a people that predated it, and have a vastly different understanding of things like skin color. The Kunlun weren’t all slaves, and the type of slavery that did happen was no where close to chattel slavery.

This is a great example of racism in action. You are generalizing an entire continent, the one with a majority of the world’s population, and conflating them to be the same peoples based on criteria that was developed by racial science. The reason this debate has gotten so misconstrued is because the system you utilize to categorize ethnic groups isn’t based on any legitimate or logical basis.

Racism is prejudice applied through the lens of racial science. There’s a similar prejudice that occurs in ethnic prejudice, that can lead to similarly devastating results as racism, but usually on a much smaller scale.

Racial prejudice isn’t based on any real criteria that can be consistently measured or predicted. Which can lead to people classifying an entire Continent of people as the same and lesser than. Instead of a conflict between two rival ethnic groups, it can lead to things like the Scramble for Africa.

I don’t know how you can’t see that as being relevant, and I honestly don’t know why you have a problem with me utilizing a more correct terminology. Utilizing ethnic prejudice is correct when race isnt a factor. Is this the first time you’ve heard of the terminology, or do you think it’s never appropriate? Why do you think both terms are used in academia if you don’t think there’s a delineation between the two?

(a period lasting from the 16th to the 19th century you silly man)

The time I used was for chattel slavery, not for the transatlantic slave trade.

African slave trade has been active through the Arab Muslim world since antiquity

And you think the Arab Muslim world is relevant to a conversation about East Asia because your race science categorizes them all as Asians? Despite that most European countries have more culturally shared history than any East Asian country…

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

Lol, that’s from a mythical tale from the fucking tang dynasty… . If there actually were real Kunlun slaves, most historians agree that they were most likely from South East Asia.

the definition of chattel slavery isn’t the transatlantic slave trade, it’s using humans as a commodity, which again is and was worldwide.

Never claimed it was? Chattel slavery isn’t just that they were treated as commodities, it that they were treated as personal property. Even in places where slaves were historically traded as a commodity they usually still had some rights. Whether that be you couldn’t break apart their family, enslave their children, or even enslave them in perpetuity.

Chattel slavery requires a system of laws protecting the rights of the owner, ensuring that he could treat slaves any way they see fit.

Asians engaged in the chattel slavery you mention in the 18th century, they also engaged in just plain old slavery.

First of all, the 18th century would be the 1700s not the 1800s as I originally stated. Secondly, the slavery that was akin to chattel slavery was introduced to India by the British when they invaded in the latter half of the 18th century.

Lastly, it’s kinda hilarious the only way you could state “Asians engaged in chattel slavery” is by utilizing terminology originating from racial science. We were talking about east Asia, not the Indian subcontinent.

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.

I mean that’s incorrect in so many ways… Chattel slavery was a Western concept, and African slaves never made their way to anywhere close to East Asia.

That’s because slaves that were imported to Asia were generally castrated. Used them up, let them die, get new ones, no breeding programs.

Lol, source?

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.

Lol, whatever you have to tell yourself to make believe Europe didn’t create one of the largest crimes against humanity ever with the transatlantic slave trade.

Do you not think Asians engaged in chattle slavery?

Well, there’s the whole problem with specifying race again. What do you mean when you say Asian? Are we talking about east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or even south east Asia?

There was something akin to chattel slavery in India in the 1800s, but nothing as widespread or cruel as chattel slavery in the Americas. As far as east Asia, no there’s not a documented history of chattel slavery.

Chattel slavery is a very specific type of slavery that wasn’t prevalent until the 18th century.

Prejudice isn’t separate from racism, it fits in like a puzzle piece

Lol, I didn’t say it was separate. All racist are prejudice, but not all prejudice is based on racism.

you just don’t like the word.

The word is fine, it’s your understanding of the word that is flawed.

Bro I think you might be racist.

Lol, against whom?

I think you might be trying to enact a revisionist view of history that lessens the actual meaning of racism. I think you are trying to equate all ethnic conflict to the systemic chattel slavery that race science enabled in the first place, making it seem less harmful than what it was.

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?

Nope, just the scientifically correct version. Redefining the colloquial understanding of racism to exclude the history of racial discrimination and it’s foundation in slavery is immoral and incorrect.

It equivocates ethnic conflict such as your example of Japanese and Koreans as the same as the European racial science theory that vindicated chattle slavery based on skin tone.

A Korean or Chinese person who dislikes a Japanese person partially because of a cultural memory of occupation is still a racist.

So any conflict between two ethnic groups is automatically the same as the European slave trade…? That totally makes sense

You are conflating ethnic conflict, which can happen for a multitude of reasons with racism, which is a prejudice specific to race.

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

Lol, or…you are actively preserving racial science and projecting your cultures dark history unto people whom never partook in chattel slavery because not something as idiotic as melanin content.

There are specific terminologies for everything we talked about, you just refuse to part ways with race science because it’s so inherent to your upbringing.

If you have a cultural dislike of a neighboring country, or different ethnic group, that’s still racism.

The word you’re looking for is called prejudice. Prejudice is part of racism, but so is the belief in race itself. Ethnic prejudice can be just as violent, or as damaging to social cohesion, but it’s inherently different than racism.

Again referring to westerners as a block without nuance

Lol, first I was being pedantic and now I’m not being nuanced? Under the context of racial science, labeling it as a western ideology is correct and fairly specific. What exactly is it lacking in nuance?

Ethnicity is too, more by definition.

Ethnicity has a set definition in the social sciences. Simply calling something a social construct does not equate it to flawed social constructs like race. Unless you are claiming that things like language and culture are just as meaningless as someone’s skin color, then there are inherent differences between ethnicity and race.

China also has xenophobia and racism. Ask Tibet.

Xenophobia yes, racism no. If race has no pertinence to racism, why utilize the terminology? Why preserve the ideology of a long debunked science?

What race are the Chinese and Tibetan?

Ask Taiwan or hong Kong nationals. That’s not news to anyone.

Lol, you are getting even more wrong the more you type. People from HK and Taiwan are the same race, and ethnicity. You are now equating nationality to race…

I can tell you totally understand what youre talking about…

Is it so hard for you to understand that racial science was never established as an inherent truth in most of the world? That it’s only the west who utilize the word Asian to describe the majority of the world’s population.

Ethnic and religious conflict, and nationalism lead different groups into the same type of ethnic prejudices, but that is inherently different from racism within the study of social sciences.

I’m not sure what that has to do with my rebuttal? I was confronting the claim that is now deleted, that China has never had a problem with racism.

I’m not claiming people aren’t being racist or xenophobic about this game. I was just explaining the difference between the western concept of racism and the history of ethnic conflict in east Asia.