12 ms·
> The amount of people affected doesn't change the abstract nature of the thing, which is what the comparison tests on. Actually it kind of does, a pretty impo
by tablespoon 4y ago
> The amount of people affected doesn't change the abstract nature of the thing, which is what the comparison tests on.
Actually it kind of does, a pretty important quality of a "gulag" is the scale, and another was its domestic focus.
Also, the comparison also fails because (I understand) a major goal of the gulag system was the acquisition of slave labor.
So on the one hand, you have a massive prison system used for domestic oppression, imprisoning citizens in physically lethal conditions and exploited for slave labor. On the other hand you have a much smaller prison, exclusively housing foreigners, used for no profitable labor of any kind.
If you don't pay attention to the details, you can make any comparison you want, but they'll be worthless comparisons.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoYes, I see what you're saying, but I think it depends which details are being highlighted. In this case the metaphor was based on the commonality of detention without trial. Of course it's not a perfect one for one; they're not literally gulags, but there are elements which are shared and I think those are what the person was trying to highlight.
- tablespoon 4y ago> In this case the metaphor was based on the commonality of detention without trial. Of course it's not a perfect one for one; they're not literally gulags, but there are elements which are shared and I think those are what the person was trying to highlight. The problem is that this particular analogy isn't helpful because it's more misleading than elucidating and there are better analogies that could be made. The only thing going for this analogy was its tendentiousness. Also, IIRC, people who were sent to the gulags did have trials, they were just unfair.