So you are familiar with welding? A welder told me about mild steel.
Mild steel is great for welding. You don't have to worry about blowing the heat treat and temper so much with mild steel when you're welding it. Mild steel is soft and malleable. If you want something sharp, though, you need high carbon steel (with a good heat treatment) instead of mild steel (that doesn't get much benefit from heat treatment since there's not enough carbon to convert to martensite (or bainite)
BTW, I am thinking about buying this real cool knife that is made from Damascus steel.
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind.
This is not the one the guy has, but I think they are so cool!!!
View attachment 67180014
You used the word inherently here. The thing is this, the word nigger is not inherently racist, as anyone can be a nigger. However, because of it's contextual usage in the U.S. and elsewhere, if a cartoonist made reference to Obama with the word nigger, it would generally be considered racist, despite the fact that there is nothing inherently racist about the term.
It is a fact that there is quite of bit of contextual usage of feces to refer to the skin of blacks in a derogatory fashion. Here's a reference for you in case you need one:
as I have demonstrated, there is good reason to say that it is racist.
????????????
How did 1005 people vote on this poll?
That's a reach.
Really??? Maybe it's just me, but the idea that that cartoon was racist would have never even crossed my mind. I would have never made ANY connection between chocolate and being black. But the OP made that connection with ease from what I could see. There's something ingrained in some people's minds that makes those kind of associations and it called "racism".
Only 42 members did.????????????
How did 1005 people vote on this poll?
I think the cartoon can be considered tacky, distasteful and rude. But racist? Not in the least.
I am blown away that 97+% of you people think it's racist.
Oh.
And I don't think this cartoon is racist at all.
It's a joke about something that appears fine actually being ****, and **** is the same color as chocolate, so...here we are.
It is somewhat uncomfortably concidential that chocolate and **** are the same color as Obama's skin...I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?
It is somewhat uncomfortably concidential that chocolate and **** are the same color as Obama's skin...
But what other analogy for "this is a piece of ****, but we're calling it something that is the same color, only nice" are you going to use?
You could go with urine, and something about lemonade, I suppose. But you can't form lemonade or urine into shapes without freezing it...or adding jello?
No, feces and chocolate work best, I think.
Holy **** I just killed the joke entirely by analyzing it too much.
The flaw here is that you want to put forward the notion that words have inherent meaning. Words are just sound, physical and mental, that humans associate with concepts. When the usage of words become common, those who have been exposed to the environment in which they are used experience conditioning associated with such usage and as a result comprehension takes place. That is to say, worlds have no inherent meaning. Rather words are given meaning through usage and conditioning. To see this, only need consider that no one understands any words until they are taught them in some fashion. As a result, for example, I don't understand Spanish at all, and when people speak it it sounds like gibberish to me. If the words had inherent meaning, I would be able to comprehend what they are saying.If one is shown the word "nigger", without any other context, it's absolutely reasonable to suggest it's racist. The word's meaning is one that's inherently racist.
The word's creation was one of pure racism. It's primary usage in this country's history has been racist in nature. Its only non-racist typical usage, in anything other than using it to simply reference the word, is as a slang term used primarily by a subset of black people.
During the fur trade of the early 1800s to the late 1840s in the Western United States, the word was spelled "niggur", and is often recorded in literature of the time. George Fredrick Ruxton often included the word as part of the "mountain man" lexicon, and did not indicate that the word was pejorative at the time. "Niggur" was evidently similar to the modern use of dude, or guy. This passage from Ruxton's Life in the Far West illustrates a common use of the word in spoken form—the speaker here referring to himself: "Travler, marm, this niggur's no travler; I ar' a trapper, marm, a mountain-man, wagh!" It was not used as a term exclusively for blacks among mountain men during this period, as Indians, Mexicans, and Frenchmen and Anglos alike could be a "niggur"
Sans any other context, looking at the word and asking "is it racist", it's reasonable to say "yes".
Does that mean it can't be used in a non-racist manner? No. It has the potential to be used in a non-racial fashion, just as that cartoon could potentially be feasibly used in a racist fashion, but in both cases it would need additional context to make it so.
A cartoon indicating that Obama is said word, save for probably a few specific exceptions, would be reasonable to call racist as there would be few clear ways of taking the cartoon...sans any additional context...that wasn't racist in nature.
There is also FAR more examples of contextual usage of feces to refer to BAD THINGS. From "that's ****ty", to "it's gone to ****", to "they **** on" something, and more...it's routinely and FAR more regularly used as a reference to something bad.
I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?
And considering in this cartoon, with the little bit of context we were given (it was put on a conservatives site), is referring to policies that conservatives generally find "bad" there's contextual reasoning in the cartoon to suggest that the reference to "****" is to refer to those things as bad. There is no contextual basis within the article to suggest that those things are being called "black", or that Barack Obama is being referenced as "****", or that they're bad and thus **** because he's black.
To use your faulty logic...that making giant assumptive leaps sans any significant contextual evidence supporting them, despite a far more compelling and simple explanation clearly there, to declare something is racist is okay as long as you can pull things from the situation/item that have been tied in some way shape or form to racism in the past....then it must also be clear to you that this is racist:
This is a Hersey's Chocolate Bar.
As you've stated, at times "Chocolate" is used to refer to black people.
As you'll also likely know, racists have long used statistics regarding the amount of blacks in prison as a means of attacking black people.
People in prisons are kept behind what? Bars. And what's the layout of the Hershey Bars resemble? Prison bars.
Using the logic you put forward in order to declare that this comic IS (not may) be racist, it is clear then that Hershey's Chocolate Bars are racist as it's association black people with prison.