6 ms·

> I'm spending my time here with them in mind, not you. I'm pretty sure you're here to hear yourself speak. I'm being terse because you're not fooling anyone e

> I'm spending my time here with them in mind, not you. I'm pretty sure you're here to hear yourself speak. I'm being terse because you're not fooling anyone else but yourself. You're concern trolling at best. You still have not sufficiently pinpointed your personal deviance with the very vanilla definition of the word slave and how it could ever be disrespectful in the currently used context about Amazon workers. It would be my pleasure to give you a direct link to the definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave >Or do you consider this to be a normal way for people to interact? Yep.

tripletao 8y ago
If I judge correctly from your words "concern trolling", you've made assumptions about my political beliefs. You think that I care neither for the slaves on the Thai fishing boat nor for the Amazon workers, and that I'm pretending to care about the first in order to minimize the situation of the second. So, you think all of this is fake. You don't think I believe anything I'm saying, so you feel no need to engage with it. If you did, then you'd be falling for my trick. So, better just to tell me--tersely--how bad I am and move on. Am I right? I'm a stranger on the Internet. You know nothing about me. You don't know what experiences I've had in my life. By attacking me instead of engaging, you've abandoned any chance to find common ground. (Maybe you think I'm too far gone, hopeless, evil, Republican. Are you sure? Why?) So the world is dangerously polarized already, and it gets a tiny quantum worse. If you want to discuss, then I've asked many questions. You could answer, or even just explain what makes one so "amazingly stupid". You might convince me of something, or I might convince you. (Have you ever changed someone's mind? What kind of language, arguments did you use? Maybe it would work this time?) If you want to do that, I'm here. Otherwise, I'm out. Oh, and you got me--I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone I meet, even when we disagree. So, this thread nags at me. I'll see how it goes.
- kadenshep 8y ago
  >I'm a stranger on the Internet. You know nothing about me I don't need to know anything about you. I just need to know that what you're saying is not rationally or logically consistent. You're playing a game with your statements. I responded directly to and directly labeled your statements. You are the only one in this thread that made a direct personal assumption in your previous post. >I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone I mean that's pretty blatantly false. You engaged in a direct unprovoked vague personal judgement because you didn't like being called out for being disingenuous. Notice you still have not been able to respond to a direct link for the definition of the word slavery, but you contine to make pretty pitiful claims about other people and being "attacked" despite not being able to quote anything to back that up.
  - tripletao 8y ago
    Okay, let's try this again: The word "slave" has many meanings. In some sentences ("she was no slave to fashion"; your definition 1.2) the meaning is clearly casual. In others ("this is modern slavery") it isn't clear whether your definition 1 is meant, or something less serious like your definition 1.1. I think the distinction between those is so important that the word should be avoided when there's any hint of doubt as to which meaning is intended. I don't know how to succinctly express the concept of "yes real slavery coerced with violence, the really bad kind" otherwise. (Do you? How would you do it?) I consider the concept important enough in human history that I think that succinct expression is important. Maybe you disagree with my position, but I don't think it's as incomprehensible as you seem to imply. Here's an academic expressing roughly the same ideas in the context of adjunct professors: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/200-adjuncts-aren-t-slaves-let-s-stop-saying-they-are https://chroniclevitae.com/news/200-adjuncts-aren-t-slaves-l... Do you think he's wrong? Or if he's right, how is his argument different from mine? If you don't try seriously and specifically to comment on Prof Leonard's argument, then I won't respond further. I don't think your linked definition is great--"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". It seems to exclude slaves held extra-legally (like most of those at sea today), and to blur the line in cases where law (e.g., relating to debt) doesn't actually make the slave legal property, but provides a strong enough coercive effect that the result is the same. Note that there are people who believe American law to be sufficiently coercive in the case of our Amazon workers that the condition is satisfied, and that they really are slaves by something close to your definition 1. Do you believe that? In referring to work at Amazon as "modern slavery", which of your linked definitions do you think is intended? You might ask who I am to disagree with the dictionary; but the definition of slavery is a difficult question that academics debate. They're not satisfied with the dictionary, so I feel no need to be. Here is one summary, from a legal viewpoint: https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/allain_-_contemporary_slavery_and_its_definition_in_law_proofs.pdf https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/allain_-_contem... The word "slave" is a heavy word to many people, in the same category as something like "Nazi". There is a movement in some academic disciplines to avoid the word entirely, in part to encourage language that shares more detail of the enslaved person's life, in part just because it's a really heavy word. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/10/12/the-language-of-enslavement/ https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/10/12/the-... I disagree with that argument, except in cases where the modified language actually adds information (e.g., "slave" to "enslaved blacksmith", but not "slave" to "enslaved person"). I understand and respect it, though. So I don't think the idea that "slave" is perhaps among the dozen heaviest words in the English language is unique to me here. > > I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone > I mean that's pretty blatantly false. I said "almost". This thread is the "almost". I'm hoping to change that. I encourage you to read Prof Leonard's argument; perhaps he can express what I've failed to. I hope most interactions in your life are more positive than this thread.

tripletao 8y ago

If I judge correctly from your words "concern trolling", you've made assumptions about my political beliefs. You think that I care neither for the slaves on the Thai fishing boat nor for the Amazon workers, and that I'm pretending to care about the first in order to minimize the situation of the second. So, you think all of this is fake. You don't think I believe anything I'm saying, so you feel no need to engage with it. If you did, then you'd be falling for my trick. So, better just to tell me--tersely--how bad I am and move on. Am I right? I'm a stranger on the Internet. You know nothing about me. You don't know what experiences I've had in my life. By attacking me instead of engaging, you've abandoned any chance to find common ground. (Maybe you think I'm too far gone, hopeless, evil, Republican. Are you sure? Why?) So the world is dangerously polarized already, and it gets a tiny quantum worse. If you want to discuss, then I've asked many questions. You could answer, or even just explain what makes one so "amazingly stupid". You might convince me of something, or I might convince you. (Have you ever changed someone's mind? What kind of language, arguments did you use? Maybe it would work this time?) If you want to do that, I'm here. Otherwise, I'm out. Oh, and you got me--I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone I meet, even when we disagree. So, this thread nags at me. I'll see how it goes.

kadenshep 8y ago
>I'm a stranger on the Internet. You know nothing about me I don't need to know anything about you. I just need to know that what you're saying is not rationally or logically consistent. You're playing a game with your statements. I responded directly to and directly labeled your statements. You are the only one in this thread that made a direct personal assumption in your previous post. >I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone I mean that's pretty blatantly false. You engaged in a direct unprovoked vague personal judgement because you didn't like being called out for being disingenuous. Notice you still have not been able to respond to a direct link for the definition of the word slavery, but you contine to make pretty pitiful claims about other people and being "attacked" despite not being able to quote anything to back that up.
- tripletao 8y ago
  Okay, let's try this again: The word "slave" has many meanings. In some sentences ("she was no slave to fashion"; your definition 1.2) the meaning is clearly casual. In others ("this is modern slavery") it isn't clear whether your definition 1 is meant, or something less serious like your definition 1.1. I think the distinction between those is so important that the word should be avoided when there's any hint of doubt as to which meaning is intended. I don't know how to succinctly express the concept of "yes real slavery coerced with violence, the really bad kind" otherwise. (Do you? How would you do it?) I consider the concept important enough in human history that I think that succinct expression is important. Maybe you disagree with my position, but I don't think it's as incomprehensible as you seem to imply. Here's an academic expressing roughly the same ideas in the context of adjunct professors: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/200-adjuncts-aren-t-slaves-let-s-stop-saying-they-are https://chroniclevitae.com/news/200-adjuncts-aren-t-slaves-l... Do you think he's wrong? Or if he's right, how is his argument different from mine? If you don't try seriously and specifically to comment on Prof Leonard's argument, then I won't respond further. I don't think your linked definition is great--"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". It seems to exclude slaves held extra-legally (like most of those at sea today), and to blur the line in cases where law (e.g., relating to debt) doesn't actually make the slave legal property, but provides a strong enough coercive effect that the result is the same. Note that there are people who believe American law to be sufficiently coercive in the case of our Amazon workers that the condition is satisfied, and that they really are slaves by something close to your definition 1. Do you believe that? In referring to work at Amazon as "modern slavery", which of your linked definitions do you think is intended? You might ask who I am to disagree with the dictionary; but the definition of slavery is a difficult question that academics debate. They're not satisfied with the dictionary, so I feel no need to be. Here is one summary, from a legal viewpoint: https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/allain_-_contemporary_slavery_and_its_definition_in_law_proofs.pdf https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/allain_-_contem... The word "slave" is a heavy word to many people, in the same category as something like "Nazi". There is a movement in some academic disciplines to avoid the word entirely, in part to encourage language that shares more detail of the enslaved person's life, in part just because it's a really heavy word. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/10/12/the-language-of-enslavement/ https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/10/12/the-... I disagree with that argument, except in cases where the modified language actually adds information (e.g., "slave" to "enslaved blacksmith", but not "slave" to "enslaved person"). I understand and respect it, though. So I don't think the idea that "slave" is perhaps among the dozen heaviest words in the English language is unique to me here. > > I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone > I mean that's pretty blatantly false. I said "almost". This thread is the "almost". I'm hoping to change that. I encourage you to read Prof Leonard's argument; perhaps he can express what I've failed to. I hope most interactions in your life are more positive than this thread.