5 ms·
Oxford dictionary's definition requires ownership, so if the prisons/corporations do not actually legally own the person, then technically it doesn't qualify as
by SkyBelow 3y ago
Oxford dictionary's definition requires ownership, so if the prisons/corporations do not actually legally own the person, then technically it doesn't qualify as slavery regardless of what sort of forced labor is required.
But is such a distinction really helpful to the discussion? If someone owns another person and forces them to work but doesn't force them to obey them, does it technically count as not a slave because it doesn't meet all three requirements of Oxford dictionary's definition. Will it really help if we then start comparing dictionary definitions of "forced" or "owned"? Or even what counts as work. A prisoner required to clean their cells and return their trays after lunch are forms of labor that could be done by janitor... is that work?
I don't think these matter once you have locked someone in a cage, even if it is a slightly gilded. Metaphorically speaking, no actual gold leaf or gold paint in use.
- lm28469 3y agoAs you say, saying "a prisoner who work is a slave" is already wrong, but saying "a prisoner who doesn't work is still a slave" is doubly wrong. > But is such a distinction really helpful to the discussion? Yes words have a meaning, changing the meaning of words is often used for dubious ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii Something can be bad and not an "holocaust", someone can be abused an not a "slave", someone can be racist and not "literally hitler", this modern perversion of language doesn't do anything besides discrediting the person who uses it. We already have very specific words for very specific situations, we don't have to reuse loaded terms
- cush 3y agoI know when I need to look up something pertaining to systemic racism, I reach for my Oxford.