If “has an owner” is what everything hinges on, and the Department of Corrections or whoever has full custody and control doesn’t count, fine. I guess that’s technically in the first definition that came up. But Jesus Christ, when the vast majority of conditions match up, you sure spent a hell of a lot more time puffing your chest and acting high and mighty instead of, you know, explaining why it isn’t. You had to go through a few responses before any explanation at all!
Yes, having an owner is what the word itself hinges on. The imagery and emotion that go with it aren’t a handy colorful Post-It to stick on something else.
And a lot of people think (not unreasonably IMO) that it hinges on the involuntary labor. I’m all for strong arguments and being accurate or whatever, but even if someone is one of today’s ten thousand it doesn’t do any good to insult them and repeat your unsubstantiated point. You know why this doesn’t perfectly fit the dictionary definition of slavery, we don’t. Is it too much to ask for you to tell us that detail, if you’re going through the trouble of commenting?
Slaves are kidnapped from their homes, having done nothing wrong, shipped somewhere and sold like cattle in markets to whoever wants to buy them. Convicts aren’t.
Prison sentences have limits - an individual convict could happen have a life sentence, but that’s not a characteristic of prison. Most convicts have a future parole date when their sentence will end. Slaves don’t - their fate is up to the whim of their owner. If there is a fixed end date then they aren’t slaves, they’re indentured servants.
Indentured servitude would be a more appropriate term for prison labor - so why not use that? Because it doesn’t sound as serious? “Slavery” has more impact? Sure, it sounds like a stronger point is being made, but “sounds better” isn’t a good reason. People who insist on attaching the slavery label to prison labor are the ones who should be justifying themselves.
Slaves have owners, but call it flapjacks or pudding or whatever makes you feel like a keyboard justice warrior.
If “has an owner” is what everything hinges on, and the Department of Corrections or whoever has full custody and control doesn’t count, fine. I guess that’s technically in the first definition that came up. But Jesus Christ, when the vast majority of conditions match up, you sure spent a hell of a lot more time puffing your chest and acting high and mighty instead of, you know, explaining why it isn’t. You had to go through a few responses before any explanation at all!
Yes, having an owner is what the word itself hinges on. The imagery and emotion that go with it aren’t a handy colorful Post-It to stick on something else.
And a lot of people think (not unreasonably IMO) that it hinges on the involuntary labor. I’m all for strong arguments and being accurate or whatever, but even if someone is one of today’s ten thousand it doesn’t do any good to insult them and repeat your unsubstantiated point. You know why this doesn’t perfectly fit the dictionary definition of slavery, we don’t. Is it too much to ask for you to tell us that detail, if you’re going through the trouble of commenting?
Slaves have owners, prison convicts don’t.
Slaves are kidnapped from their homes, having done nothing wrong, shipped somewhere and sold like cattle in markets to whoever wants to buy them. Convicts aren’t.
Prison sentences have limits - an individual convict could happen have a life sentence, but that’s not a characteristic of prison. Most convicts have a future parole date when their sentence will end. Slaves don’t - their fate is up to the whim of their owner. If there is a fixed end date then they aren’t slaves, they’re indentured servants.
Indentured servitude would be a more appropriate term for prison labor - so why not use that? Because it doesn’t sound as serious? “Slavery” has more impact? Sure, it sounds like a stronger point is being made, but “sounds better” isn’t a good reason. People who insist on attaching the slavery label to prison labor are the ones who should be justifying themselves.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I agree. I’m just saying you could have said all that a looooong time ago instead of wasting time being coy