6 ms·

>but to throw words like "slavery" around in this context seems grossly disrespectful No it isn't.

tripletao 8y ago
You edited my comment selectively--"of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Here is one example: http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2102498/tackling-slavery-thai-fishing-industry-one-victim http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/artic... Do you really see no difference between that and an Amazon warehouse? If the Amazon job is "slavery", then what word would you use for the guy chained up on a Thai fishing boat? I am asking this not to minimize the unpleasantness of working for Amazon, but to preserve the gravity of a word whose meaning is among the worst human evils.
- kadenshep 8y ago
  I didn't edit anything, what?
  - tripletao 8y ago
    You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Those make it clear that I think the use of "slavery" is wrong here not because it slanders Jeff Bezos or American enterprise or whatever, but because it conflates (a) a bad job--accepted on the open market, by people in a country with a safety net that while imperfect almost never lets people starve to death--with (b) taking people with force or deception, making them work, and keeping them even if they want to leave, under threat of physical violence. Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Is there a word that you use to mean (b) that doesn't include (a)? How do you think that guy on the Thai fishing boat would feel, if he saw the Amazon warehouse and was told it was "slavery"?
    - kadenshep 8y ago
      >You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Um, okay. My response still stands. >Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Yeah, because I think most people are intelligent enough to understand that the situations are not equatable. The word is still correct to use.
      - tripletao 8y ago
        So for calibration: What fraction of American workers would you consider to be slaves? What do you think distinguishes a slave from a non-slave? Is it the pay? The working conditions? It's not just the discipline and the long hours, unless you think that soldiers (and junior investment bankers) are slaves. Might the same conditions be slavery or not, depending on the pay? Given a job description, how do I determine if it's slavery? And how sure are you that you could look that guy from the boat in the eye, and tell him that yes, the workers in those warehouses are slaves, same as he was? (Did you read the story I linked? Look at the pictures, and count everyone who died?) How many people have you met who have spent time under conditions far beyond what American labor law could imagine? I'm wasting my time belaboring this. You ignore most of my questions, and I doubt I'll change your mind. The casual use of a such a heavy word just bothers me. If we waste our strongest language on ordinary wrongs, and then the worst comes, then what words will we have left to express it?
        kadenshep 8y ago
        I'm ignoring most of your questions because they are, to put it shortly, amazingly stupid. >And how sure are you that you could look that guy from the boat in the eye, and tell him that yes, the workers in those warehouses are slaves, same as he was No, because I said they weren't really equatable. Someone sick with a cold and someone sick with cancer are obviously fairly different. But we still treat the cold, and we still call the people who are ailed by the cold "sick." Sorry you can't seem to appreciate basic semantics. >If we waste our strongest language on ordinary wrongs, and then the worst comes, then what words will we have left to express it? I mean, your contention is that we're wasting it, which you'll need to prove. I don't think we've ever had a problem with word selection and creation to express the gravity of certain situations, so you'll need to further explain this vocabulary doomsday scenario you're describing.

You edited my comment selectively--"of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Here is one example: http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2102498/tackling-slavery-thai-fishing-industry-one-victim http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/artic... Do you really see no difference between that and an Amazon warehouse? If the Amazon job is "slavery", then what word would you use for the guy chained up on a Thai fishing boat? I am asking this not to minimize the unpleasantness of working for Amazon, but to preserve the gravity of a word whose meaning is among the worst human evils.

kadenshep 8y ago
I didn't edit anything, what?
- tripletao 8y ago
  You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Those make it clear that I think the use of "slavery" is wrong here not because it slanders Jeff Bezos or American enterprise or whatever, but because it conflates (a) a bad job--accepted on the open market, by people in a country with a safety net that while imperfect almost never lets people starve to death--with (b) taking people with force or deception, making them work, and keeping them even if they want to leave, under threat of physical violence. Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Is there a word that you use to mean (b) that doesn't include (a)? How do you think that guy on the Thai fishing boat would feel, if he saw the Amazon warehouse and was told it was "slavery"?
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    >You removed the words "of the genuine horrors that exist even today". Um, okay. My response still stands. >Do you think we should use the same word for both of these concepts? Yeah, because I think most people are intelligent enough to understand that the situations are not equatable. The word is still correct to use.
    - tripletao 8y ago
      So for calibration: What fraction of American workers would you consider to be slaves? What do you think distinguishes a slave from a non-slave? Is it the pay? The working conditions? It's not just the discipline and the long hours, unless you think that soldiers (and junior investment bankers) are slaves. Might the same conditions be slavery or not, depending on the pay? Given a job description, how do I determine if it's slavery? And how sure are you that you could look that guy from the boat in the eye, and tell him that yes, the workers in those warehouses are slaves, same as he was? (Did you read the story I linked? Look at the pictures, and count everyone who died?) How many people have you met who have spent time under conditions far beyond what American labor law could imagine? I'm wasting my time belaboring this. You ignore most of my questions, and I doubt I'll change your mind. The casual use of a such a heavy word just bothers me. If we waste our strongest language on ordinary wrongs, and then the worst comes, then what words will we have left to express it?
      - kadenshep 8y ago
        I'm ignoring most of your questions because they are, to put it shortly, amazingly stupid. >And how sure are you that you could look that guy from the boat in the eye, and tell him that yes, the workers in those warehouses are slaves, same as he was No, because I said they weren't really equatable. Someone sick with a cold and someone sick with cancer are obviously fairly different. But we still treat the cold, and we still call the people who are ailed by the cold "sick." Sorry you can't seem to appreciate basic semantics. >If we waste our strongest language on ordinary wrongs, and then the worst comes, then what words will we have left to express it? I mean, your contention is that we're wasting it, which you'll need to prove. I don't think we've ever had a problem with word selection and creation to express the gravity of certain situations, so you'll need to further explain this vocabulary doomsday scenario you're describing.