|
quote:To: Altura Ct. Oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_States wikipedia posted:Human trafficking is the modern form of slavery, with illegal smuggling and trading of people, for forced labour or sexual exploitation.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Thats an interesting and shifting definition of slavery, most humans mean "Legalized, government enforced Chattel slavery" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Chattel_slavery) when they hear the word. Dont be a freeper and shift the goalposts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
I remember reading rumours that some of the mega farms in the US employed forced labourers that were regularly beaten if they tried to run away. Laws that prevent journalists from filming on farms were used as examples for how its kept hidden, I didn't put much stock into it back then but I would be interested to know if there's anything to the story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I remember reading rumours that some of the mega farms in the US employed forced labourers that were regularly beaten if they tried to run away. Laws that prevent journalists from filming on farms were used as examples for how its kept hidden, I didn't put much stock into it back then but I would be interested to know if there's anything to the story. Oh it definitely happens, most of the fruit pickers in California are illegal immigrants that probably are forcibly prevented from leaving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Dont be a freeper and shift the goalposts. Human trafficking is literally selling people. Saying this is shifting the goalposts essentially means that slavery is eradicated because no countries anywhere have legalised slavery. Freep's also wrong in "no other civilisation" considered the step. Going by Wikipedia, Iceland did in the 1100s, along with France and Sweden in the 1300s. These were reverted, but claiming the modern west invented the concept of abolition isn't quite right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Didn't the Persian Empire ban slavery?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Plenty of civilizations abolished slavery before 19th century Western Civ., and the Global Slavery Index estimates there are 57,000 – 63,000 slaves* today in the United States alone, with 30 million worldwide. Slavery may not be legal in the US, but several industries profit from it and the implementation of this slavery often depends on US law enforcement policy as a threat to keep people in slavery from attempting to escape. *With slavery defined as "possession and control of a person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of...individual liberty, with the intent of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal. Usually this exercise will be achieved through means such as violence or threats of violence, deception and/or coercion." tl;dr: That freep post was wrong on multiple levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Well I mean you can turn that around, ancient civilizations that abolished slavery probably still had illegal owned slaves too. It doesn't change your point, western civs weren't the first to end it, people can just be morally repugnant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
QuantumCrayons posted:Human trafficking is literally selling people. Saying this is shifting the goalposts essentially means that slavery is eradicated because no countries anywhere have legalised slavery. Freep's also wrong in "no other civilisation" considered the step. Going by Wikipedia, Iceland did in the 1100s, along with France and Sweden in the 1300s. These were reverted, but claiming the modern west invented the concept of abolition isn't quite right. But the conversation is clearly about slavery as a legal and accepted institution. Making this about modern slavery that is abhorred and illegal is shifting the goalposts. You're now being one of those "but is anything really real" sophists. You might as well just say "but in the US people break laws." I mean, yeah, people break the law in the US. No poo poo. The difference here is that when someone is caught with a house slave, they're universally demonized. Saying that we haven't abolished slavery because some people still do it is like saying we haven't abolished murder because some people still do it. That's not even hyperbole. I mean, slavery is one of the most harshly punished crimes in our society. It's up there with rape and murder. ColdSnickersBar fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Didn't the Persian Empire ban slavery? More or less when Zoroastrianism became the imperial religion, although I'm sure it persisted in satraps that didn't have as many moral hangups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Honestly who even cares about the accuracy of the claim? Oh, all of a sudden we're one big happy family of Christendom, when it buttresses their argument. What's that, the death penalty is inhuman? gently caress you you stupid communists, Ammmurica fer ever. What's that, the people have voted not to be as institutionally bigoted to [insert minority here]? gently caress Democracy man, it was such a terrible idea in the first place. Freepers of all people shouldn't get to claim the moral legacy of western civilization (as dubious and racist as that concept even is) when they've basically dedicated their lives to hating the progressive parts of it. E: Seriously "White people died to end slavery. Except those assholes also enslaved the South and put all the black people on government plantations!". I know Freep isn't really a hive mind, but I know I've seen people hold basically these two contradictory positions almost simultaneously. It really is impressive the amount of double think they're able to practice to always have ht moral high ground. Also I'm pretty sure the Mauryan empire abolished slavery in like 300 bc but w/e. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Also it should be noted that slavery varied in its degrees and severity through history. Slavery of Antiquity was much different than that of American slavery, which held a more permanent and racially based flavor. A slave in Rome could buy his freed and was not himself necessarily born into slavery, perhaps falling into it as a result of debt or as a prisoner of war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Modern-day slavery in America that is commonly accepted, you say? This is Angola Prison in Louisiana, which used to be a slave plantation and where inmates, overwhelmingly black in a state where 1 in 45 people are in prison, still pick cotton by hand on its 18,000 acre farm. Louisiana has disproportionately long jail sentences, meaning many of the prisoners in Angola are imprisoned there for decades or for life. Drug laws in Louisiana are especially harsh: first offence marijuana possession can get you up to 6 months in jail, second offence up to five years, and third offence up to 20 years. Recall that this is also America, where black people consume drugs at the same rate as white people yet are many times more likely to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for it. And, of course, felons are not allowed to vote whether imprisoned, on parole, or on probation. When you add all these things together you get a massive prison population of overwhelmingly black people, imprisoned for disproportionately long periods of time, often for offences that are barely crimes, and who get to take part in forced labour picking cotton while there. That's your societally accepted modern slavery in America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Smeep posted:Yes. If Freep was around then, there's no question they would have been Democrats of some stripe. Let's be fair here: some of them would end up as Know Nothings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Modern-day slavery in America that is commonly accepted, you say? As it was said above, it's pretty clear that we're talking about institutionalized chattel slavery. The people you mentioned above are not owned by anyone. They were not sold to anyone. They are not property. They are in our justice system, and whether or not they are there fairly is a whole other debate. Whether forced labor is or is not "slavery" is a totally different debate, and a matter of definitions. Whether these circumstances are a result of institutionalized discrimination, and whether that qualifies this as "slavery", or merely rehabilitation, is a huge conversation, that isn't a part of this conversation about chattel slavery. I, for one, do believe that discrimination today is implicit, and that these conditions are unfair, but that's not the same as it being okay to buy people. If you're going to bend and twist definitions to find ways to ridicule freepers, then you're just doing the same poo poo they do. You're just doing the whole "well, can words even mean anything, maaaaaan?" kind of ridiculousness. Clearly, you could just bend the definition of "slavery" to mean sweatshops, and forced labor, and even white-collar drudgery. Might as well just say Wallmart greeters are "slaves" to circumstances, and an implicit discrimination against old people in our system, but if you do, then it's clearly not a part of this conversation. What we are talking about is that it was made illegal to buy and sell human beings, and it's very clear that it is unacceptable in our system. The US was not the first to do this, as the freeper claims. For instance, England abolished slavery just slightly before the US did (but whether exploitation in the colonies is slavery is another conversation) The Freeper is correct that slavery was much more universally accepted in the past, but his seeming implication that this makes it okay doesn't follow from that premise. His seeming implication that we "gave" black people their rights by abolishing slavery is also not sound because you can't "give" people rights, you can only stop violating their rights, so the US didn't do them a favor by abolishing slavery, instead the nation stopped committing a huge crime -- no matter how old that crime is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
ColdSnickersBar posted:As it was said above, it's pretty clear that we're talking about institutionalized chattel slavery. The people you mentioned above are not owned by anyone. They were not sold to anyone. They are not property. (Slavery by Another Name, by Douglas Blackmon.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Nyarai posted:Well, there was the pervasive system of involuntary indentured servitude that went on from the emancipation to WWII. (Not quite modern, but certainly not 19th century.) Basically, you arrest a black guy for vagrancy, loitering, or any number of BS charges. Then a white guy who runs a plantation or a steel mill or what have you pays the fine to bail them out. Suddenly, they owe this Job Creator (TM) a certain amount of labor which they somehow can't ever pay off. Their debts could be traded or sold to other business owners, and corrupt members of the justice system would basically 'recruit' from the vulnerable black population. If I remember right, private prisons as a nationwide thing started to spring up after you could no longer do this particular thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Nyarai posted:Well, there was the pervasive system of involuntary indentured servitude that went on from the emancipation to WWII. (Not quite modern, but certainly not 19th century.) Basically, you arrest a black guy for vagrancy, loitering, or any number of BS charges. Then a white guy who runs a plantation or a steel mill or what have you pays the fine to bail them out. Suddenly, they owe this Job Creator (TM) a certain amount of labor which they somehow can't ever pay off. Their debts could be traded or sold to other business owners, and corrupt members of the justice system would basically 'recruit' from the vulnerable black population. Yeah, and then you can just start redefining things so that Jim Crow is "slavery" because it was implicit and actual laws that guided black people into service and manual labor profession and limited their ability to negotiate the value of their labor, and even limited their ability to leave their jobs in some circumstances. But then, again, we're starting to talk about a completely different conversation -- poo poo, a completely different world of conversations -- about labor abuses, capitalism, corruption, and discrimination. Yeah, okay, every definition in the world can be stretched until it meets with the next definition. Like, I said, you can consider Wallmart greeters slaves if you wish, but we're not talking about that here. Just because something is evil, and just because it's an abuse of labor, doesn't make it slavery. Indentured servitude is indentured servitude. Forced prison labor is forced prison labor. Labor exploitation is labor exploitation. Slavery is slavery. Calling other things slavery is just metaphorical, like "we're slaves to capitalism" and "white collar slavery." Maybe it helps illustrate the problem, but it's not actual slavery. Actually, these are other problems that have their own complex solutions and their own complex social negotiations. What a ridiculous digression this is. ColdSnickersBar fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Modern-day slavery in America that is commonly accepted, you say? Have you got a source for the forced labor part? Seems like an essential element of the definition here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
We could debate this forever, so I'm gonna drop it and post some freep. Reining in the IRS -- The House GOP unveils its plan quote:Interesting to note: Uh... Mitt Romney released those himself.  quote:Any branch of the IRS that is caught abusing citizens because of their political activities should be shut down immediately and all employees fired. Then their supervisors should be brought to trial and when convicted, long prison sentences should be given. Nothing gives the federal government the right to abuse citizens who pay their salaries. How is it abuse to make sure political groups aren't applying for a tax exemption specifically off-limits to political groups?  quote:To: Usagi_yo quote:To: E. Pluribus Unum Brilliant. They're furious Obama hasn't had a real scandal yet, aren't they? quote:To: Usagi_yo They're ALL RINOs! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Word is in the Marriage Equality thread that TX just had its ban on gay marriage struck down; get your buckets ready, boys and girls  e: and away we go! http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3127288/posts quote:To: Snickering Hound quote:To: Snickering Hound quote:To: Snickering Hound quote:To: The_Republic_Of_Maine Icon Of Sin fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
The Texas gay marriage ban has been struck down. I'd look forward to the Freeper tears, but I'm sure it's going to be mostly the same as always: end of civilization, the judge is gay, everyone is gay, feces feces feces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
For starters. Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional quote:To: Snickering Hound quote:To: Snickering Hound; Zionist Conspirator quote:To: Snickering Hound quote:To: Snickering Hound quote:To: The_Republic_Of_Maine
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Retired Defense Secretary Robert Gates enjoys Skagit home before taking Boy Scouts top job quote:To: MacNaughton quote:To: MacNaughton
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Another good one from the TX thread, pinging the BIG MAN himself with some good ol' fashioned soviet paranoia, added for flavor:quote:To: Jim Robinson
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
How much chance does the overturn have of holding up? The Utah one lasted all of like 3 days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
quote:I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and building up to the point where some people engage in violence. Freeper, or Senator from Texas?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:How much chance does the overturn have of holding up? The Utah one lasted all of like 3 days. Its not in effect now; the judge said it was pending the (inevitable) appeal. So in Texas gay marriage is still not really an option. But it's another hole in the wall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
^^ Alter Ego posted:How much chance does the overturn have of holding up? The Utah one lasted all of like 3 days. The judge overturned the law and then ordered a stay while it's under appeal. Everyone in the legal realm essentially realizes that all of these cases are going to end up at SCOTUS in the next couple of years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:But it's another hole in the wall. I bet you know all about those, you queer-loving libtard. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Georgia Peach posted:I bet you know all about those, you queer-loving libtard. Can't let Texas have all the glory, can we?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh it definitely happens, most of the fruit pickers in California are illegal immigrants that probably are forcibly prevented from leaving. It definitely happens, but it is a stretch to say that it happens to "most" of the migrant workers in Calfornia. Sure, they are economically exploited all to hell, and some lovely employers steal their wages or hang the threat of deportation over them, and the work conditions are horrible. They get no benefits or health care and are in constant fear of deportation. Their lives are horrible. Not doubting any of that. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the braceros are free to come and go from job to job. Many return to Mexico and then voluntarily return to California for the next picking season (voluntarily in the sense that it is the only work available to them).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Its not in effect now; the judge said it was pending the (inevitable) appeal. So in Texas gay marriage is still not really an option. But it's another hole in the wall. It's really only a matter of time before this hits the SCOTUS and another one of Scalia's horcruxes gets destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
quote:quote: This is the same rant this guy has been using for years and, one time, someone actually corrected him. The "media" is big business owned by big companies, not little indy Liberal goliaths. So he added the phrase "de facto", patted himself on the back, and continued to use the exact same rant. If you point out that he's wrong he'll screech "I SAID 'de facto'!!!!!!" and declare himself the winner again the stupid LIEbruls who can't understand simple English.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
quote:To: T-Bird45
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Oh Dalereed 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Freepers: don't care if it's photoshopped, it still makes a point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
quote:To: T-Bird45  Godspeed you, sir! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LINsNCaxZ5U
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Freepers: don't care if it's photoshopped, it still makes a point. Yeah.. I don't think the point it makes is the one that they think it makes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:This is the same rant this guy has been using for years and, one time, someone actually corrected him. The "media" is big business owned by big companies, not little indy Liberal goliaths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:37
|
|
