4 ms·

Also see: the first time this article was submitted with a slight title correction to avoid the disgusting euphemism for slavery used by the original site[0] [

Also see: the first time this article was submitted with a slight title correction to avoid the disgusting euphemism for slavery used by the original site[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31782727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31782727

denimnerd42 4y ago
and for the people arguing over terminology... slavery is explicitly allowed in the constitution: [n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
- karaterobot 4y ago
  No, it's not. The Supreme Court settled that argument over a hundred years ago, in Bailey v. Alabama: > The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude. It may help to interpret the wording of the amendment like this: "Here is a list of two things which shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction: Number one is slavery, number two is involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a duly convicted crime)." And that's how SCOTUS appears to interpret it, which means that's de facto what it says.
  - johnday 4y ago
    > which means that's de facto what it says. ITYM that it's de jure what it says. de facto is the opposite.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
WalterGR 4y ago
> used by the original site *Used by the original submission. (I think that's what you meant... The article has a title closer to what you used.)
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  Your correction to the GP comment is incorrect. This is an article about slave labor and submitting it under titles that suggest otherwise is misleading.
- smcl 4y ago
  GP is saying that calling the prisoners "workers" is incorrect, and that it is more accurate to refer to them as "slaves". Honestly, I'd tend to agree. There's even a little exception in the 13th Amendment specifically for this: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" They're slaves.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The GP's point is that calling slaves forced to work in a prison "workers" is a disgusting euphemism.
  - WalterGR 4y ago
    Ah, thanks. I got it backwards.
- markovbot 4y ago
  No, the disgusting euphemism is still live on the original site and was allowed to stay up on HN. The submission correcting the disgusting euphemism was flagged off the front page before this submission that we're on with was submitted.
robocat 4y ago
Don't editorialize the title. Use the comments to make your point. Submit using the original title is the rule to avoid people creating flamebait etcetera: “Otherwise please use the original title, unless [the original title] is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- markovbot 4y ago
  the original title was misleading. It implied they are not slaves.

denimnerd42 4y ago

and for the people arguing over terminology... slavery is explicitly allowed in the constitution: [n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

karaterobot 4y ago
No, it's not. The Supreme Court settled that argument over a hundred years ago, in Bailey v. Alabama: > The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude. It may help to interpret the wording of the amendment like this: "Here is a list of two things which shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction: Number one is slavery, number two is involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a duly convicted crime)." And that's how SCOTUS appears to interpret it, which means that's de facto what it says.
- johnday 4y ago
  > which means that's de facto what it says. ITYM that it's de jure what it says. de facto is the opposite.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

WalterGR 4y ago

> used by the original site *Used by the original submission. (I think that's what you meant... The article has a title closer to what you used.)

anonymoushn 4y ago
Your correction to the GP comment is incorrect. This is an article about slave labor and submitting it under titles that suggest otherwise is misleading.
smcl 4y ago
GP is saying that calling the prisoners "workers" is incorrect, and that it is more accurate to refer to them as "slaves". Honestly, I'd tend to agree. There's even a little exception in the 13th Amendment specifically for this: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" They're slaves.
tsimionescu 4y ago
The GP's point is that calling slaves forced to work in a prison "workers" is a disgusting euphemism.
- WalterGR 4y ago
  Ah, thanks. I got it backwards.
markovbot 4y ago
No, the disgusting euphemism is still live on the original site and was allowed to stay up on HN. The submission correcting the disgusting euphemism was flagged off the front page before this submission that we're on with was submitted.

robocat 4y ago

Don't editorialize the title. Use the comments to make your point. Submit using the original title is the rule to avoid people creating flamebait etcetera: “Otherwise please use the original title, unless [the original title] is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

markovbot 4y ago
the original title was misleading. It implied they are not slaves.