4 ms·

It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keep

by dx87 8y ago

It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_with_mandatory_military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_wit...

vkou 8y ago
Yet, in the same breath, those same people condemn punitive labour camps in communist countries. You can't really have it both ways. Forced labour in prison creates a colossal conflict of interest for the state, even in a world where the law is just, and is applied fairly. (We don't really live in that world.)
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. What I stated was a fact. Too bad, that you don't like facts, or that you try to dismiss the fact that it is slavery by comparing it to chattel slavery. This isnt some bigoted law in some Southern state legislature. This is enshrined as federal constitutional law, and is also why the USA is not a signatory to numerous anti-slave treaties. > If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. No, "I" didn't call it slavery. The 13th amendment did. Too bad the constitution isnt enough of a authoritative source. And then, you dismiss it with whataboutism. I live in the USA, and am dscussing USA constitutional law; Im not discussing your whataboutism of countries I dont live in.
- pc86 8y ago
  You probably serve your (IMO just) argument well by learning to discuss controversial topics with at least some semblance of respect for those who disagree with you.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    So I should "respect" those who accept and advocate slavery? No. We can discuss controversial subjects. Happens quite often. But you're wanting me to respect the fact that people are OK with slavery. Put it this way: I have ethics, and this is beyond the pale. This "argument" is nothing more than a decorum complaint. Slavery, in all its forms, is Wrong. Anybody who supports slavery is Wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. And we fought a war over this very issue, and the 'compromise' was that criminals could be enslaved. Who'da thought that the majority of those who were chattel slaves would end up as "criminals", and back where they started? Its high time we excise that criminals part from the 13th.
somebodythere 8y ago
The guilty plea system is pretty much used to intimidate defendants into waiving their right to a fair trial. Far, far, from every person serving time in a prison has been convicted by a jury in a court of law.
komali2 8y ago
Well, yes, I would agree that forced conscription is a form of slavery. Obviously it's not as horrible a situation as say early American black slavery, but slavery nonetheless. I'm happy to be challenged on this.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  In what sense is it not equally horrible? Combine it with these observations: 1) Trials are increasingly rare, most criminals in prison never had one, they made a plea deal 2) The difference between a maximum sentence and a plea deal can be an order of magnitude (2 years instead of 20) 3) Dark skinned people can rationally expect that they won’t receive a fair trial, given bias in police investigations, DA practices, and juries. ... That adds up to a lot of innocent dark skinned people in prison, who quite rationally traded their civic rights for a smaller variability in their risk profile. I guess what’s “better” about that than chattel slavery is that person had a possibility of release. So instead of 100% chance of incarceration and loss of civil rights, they had only an 80% chance of incarceration. Is that your position? Personally, that doesn’t feel like a qualitative difference. Seems like the same situation just moved to a different psychic plane. But, interested in your thoughts.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I was talking about forced military conscription, i.e. what Taiwanese and Korean citizens undergo, not the American prison system. These systems aren't as bad as chattel slavery because there is a strict legal requirement of when they must end (usually within a year), the citizen remains a citizen (albeit a military one as well) and thus still gets due process (outside of military punishments for, say, defecting or pointing a gun at a superior officer), the citizen can own property while doing their service, they get to do whatever they want with their own money, etc etc etc. I still think they're wrong, for many reasons, but also because I don't believe there should be militaries designed for human-human conflict.

by dx87 8y ago

vkou 8y ago

Yet, in the same breath, those same people condemn punitive labour camps in communist countries. You can't really have it both ways. Forced labour in prison creates a colossal conflict of interest for the state, even in a world where the law is just, and is applied fairly. (We don't really live in that world.)

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

> It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. What I stated was a fact. Too bad, that you don't like facts, or that you try to dismiss the fact that it is slavery by comparing it to chattel slavery. This isnt some bigoted law in some Southern state legislature. This is enshrined as federal constitutional law, and is also why the USA is not a signatory to numerous anti-slave treaties. > If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. No, "I" didn't call it slavery. The 13th amendment did. Too bad the constitution isnt enough of a authoritative source. And then, you dismiss it with whataboutism. I live in the USA, and am dscussing USA constitutional law; Im not discussing your whataboutism of countries I dont live in.

pc86 8y ago
You probably serve your (IMO just) argument well by learning to discuss controversial topics with at least some semblance of respect for those who disagree with you.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  So I should "respect" those who accept and advocate slavery? No. We can discuss controversial subjects. Happens quite often. But you're wanting me to respect the fact that people are OK with slavery. Put it this way: I have ethics, and this is beyond the pale. This "argument" is nothing more than a decorum complaint. Slavery, in all its forms, is Wrong. Anybody who supports slavery is Wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. And we fought a war over this very issue, and the 'compromise' was that criminals could be enslaved. Who'da thought that the majority of those who were chattel slaves would end up as "criminals", and back where they started? Its high time we excise that criminals part from the 13th.

somebodythere 8y ago

The guilty plea system is pretty much used to intimidate defendants into waiving their right to a fair trial. Far, far, from every person serving time in a prison has been convicted by a jury in a court of law.

komali2 8y ago

Well, yes, I would agree that forced conscription is a form of slavery. Obviously it's not as horrible a situation as say early American black slavery, but slavery nonetheless. I'm happy to be challenged on this.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
In what sense is it not equally horrible? Combine it with these observations: 1) Trials are increasingly rare, most criminals in prison never had one, they made a plea deal 2) The difference between a maximum sentence and a plea deal can be an order of magnitude (2 years instead of 20) 3) Dark skinned people can rationally expect that they won’t receive a fair trial, given bias in police investigations, DA practices, and juries. ... That adds up to a lot of innocent dark skinned people in prison, who quite rationally traded their civic rights for a smaller variability in their risk profile. I guess what’s “better” about that than chattel slavery is that person had a possibility of release. So instead of 100% chance of incarceration and loss of civil rights, they had only an 80% chance of incarceration. Is that your position? Personally, that doesn’t feel like a qualitative difference. Seems like the same situation just moved to a different psychic plane. But, interested in your thoughts.
- komali2 8y ago
  I was talking about forced military conscription, i.e. what Taiwanese and Korean citizens undergo, not the American prison system. These systems aren't as bad as chattel slavery because there is a strict legal requirement of when they must end (usually within a year), the citizen remains a citizen (albeit a military one as well) and thus still gets due process (outside of military punishments for, say, defecting or pointing a gun at a superior officer), the citizen can own property while doing their service, they get to do whatever they want with their own money, etc etc etc. I still think they're wrong, for many reasons, but also because I don't believe there should be militaries designed for human-human conflict.