As 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

As 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