2 ms·

>>Devices can't literally own a person, so it's not the correct use. No, it is actually completely correct. But for the sake of playing this fun game of being

>>Devices can't literally own a person, so it's not the correct use. No, it is actually completely correct. But for the sake of playing this fun game of being "Technically right" here's also a dictionary definition: Slave noun: "a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:" She was a slave to her own ambition. >>and not accept colloquial usage has perverted the term No such thing has happened, words can have both literal and figurative meaning.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>No, it is actually completely correct. fair enough, I thought that definition was unofficial or marked as slang. >No such thing has happened, words can have both literal and figurative meaning. yes, like "literally" having the definition of "figuratively". I would indeed call that a perversion: >to divert to a wrong end or purpose most of the time that is at best marked as slang (such as use of a double negative to mean a negative, and not a soft positive), but I guess that's not my call to make.
- chaps 3y ago
  Hmmm. Personally when the non-disambiguated wikipedia page of a specific word starts with, "$WORD is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor." and includes a photo of a physically mutilated other person, then maybe there are reasons to be a bit more careful since it's very easy to pass the wrong message. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery