5 ms·

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.
      - tripletao 8y ago
        Why the insults ("amazingly stupid", "can't seem to appreciate basic semantics")? Do you think they'll help convince other people reading that you're right? I'm spending my time here with them in mind, not you. Or do you consider this to be a normal way for people to interact? I can assure you that it's not. If it is for you, then your experience is different from most of the world's, in a way that I suspect makes your life worse. If someone is coerced using physical force to work, and forbidden to leave under that same threat, then I would call them a slave. I would use the word only in that context. You disagree. It's common for people on the Internet to disagree. But then what word would you use to distinguish the guy on the fishing boat from the Amazon workers? How would you express that unique human evil? I saw a newspaper headline: "There are 40 million slaves worldwide, most are women and girls". I'm pretty sure that's not counting the Amazon workers. How would you rewrite that headline to fix the undercount (without changing the 40M)? I'm still trying to understand your definition for the word "slave". I understand that you think the Amazon workers are slaves. Are all warehouse employees? Only those with the rigid, machine-enforced discipline of Amazon's warehouse? Those paid less than some threshold? Manufacturing workers, on the long lines where each worker repeats a single step over and over? Fast food workers reading their instructions off a monitor? A trader glued to his Bloomberg terminal? If these questions are "amazingly stupid", why?

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.
    - tripletao 8y ago
      Why the insults ("amazingly stupid", "can't seem to appreciate basic semantics")? Do you think they'll help convince other people reading that you're right? I'm spending my time here with them in mind, not you. Or do you consider this to be a normal way for people to interact? I can assure you that it's not. If it is for you, then your experience is different from most of the world's, in a way that I suspect makes your life worse. If someone is coerced using physical force to work, and forbidden to leave under that same threat, then I would call them a slave. I would use the word only in that context. You disagree. It's common for people on the Internet to disagree. But then what word would you use to distinguish the guy on the fishing boat from the Amazon workers? How would you express that unique human evil? I saw a newspaper headline: "There are 40 million slaves worldwide, most are women and girls". I'm pretty sure that's not counting the Amazon workers. How would you rewrite that headline to fix the undercount (without changing the 40M)? I'm still trying to understand your definition for the word "slave". I understand that you think the Amazon workers are slaves. Are all warehouse employees? Only those with the rigid, machine-enforced discipline of Amazon's warehouse? Those paid less than some threshold? Manufacturing workers, on the long lines where each worker repeats a single step over and over? Fast food workers reading their instructions off a monitor? A trader glued to his Bloomberg terminal? If these questions are "amazingly stupid", why?