|
I went to get drinks with friends, and I suspect that my bartender was being economically coerced to serve his "customers". I'm on the phone with the police, what should I tell them?
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Samog posted:a thread about prostitution is maybe the worst possible place to make an argument against the existence of economic coercion A thread that starts off with a big long article bashing the idea of portraying prostitutes as "economically coerced victims who are basically white sex slaves" is actually the best possible place to make those sorts of arguments. "Economic coercion" as a concept seems strangely limited to prostitution, in spite of it clearly applying to every single human occupation. You never really see it used in other fields, legal or illegal, even when it might be useful to progressive advocates. This is because it's a bunk concept that acts as a stand-in for a bunch of politically-incorrect morality arguments about prostitution. Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Economic coercion is pretty much the mainstay argument about many progressive arguments. For example, about why right-to-work sucks: because employers have greater economic coercive power than employees. But that's precisely it - it's a completely different interpretation of the concept of economic inequality when you get away from sex work. You'd rarely see even the most radical progressives saying that employees in anti-union states are being economically coerced, equating that with literal slavery, and arguing that the employers should be imprisoned and the "victims" should be sent to social workers. You'd rarely see people saying, "Well I don't want to be part of even the hint of economic coercion, so I don't go anywhere that allows tipping". "Economic inequality" is certainly a mainstay progressive concept. "Economic coercion", as it is practiced in regards to sex work, is unique. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You'll see progressives saying that employees who are illegal immigrants are being economically coerced, equating that with slavery (though, that'd be rare, they'd more draw an analogy to the position of blacks in the south post-Civil War, but anyway) and arguing that employers of illegal immigrants out to be imprisoned and the victims sent to social workers. Economic coercion is a very frequently used concept. What "progressive" are you talking to that thinks employers of undocumented immigrants should be imprisoned and the immigrants should be sent to social workers? That's not a very progressive idea. There is discussion of illegal trafficking and slavery in regards to undocumented immigrants, but typically when the coercive force is a coyote workhouse and all the things associated with that (physical abuse, imprisonment, the language barrier, withholding documents, etc.). There's few progressives who would make those types of claims about someone who is a normal service worker but doesn't have legal documentation. Certainly I wouldn't make the claim that the undocumented guys working the kitchens throughout California and Oregon are "coerced slaves", and neither, apparently, would you. quote:This is false. Economic coercion as a concept is not limited to prostitution, but included in progressive protests against a ton of other stuff, including employment of undocumented workers, ordinary workers, etc. You're now claiming you mean some particular aspect of the reaction to this form of economic coercion, and I'd say it is true that some progressives treat economic coercion that results in repeated rape differently from economic coercion that doesn't, and I don't really have a big problem with that. You're simply engaging in equivalency, which isn't a very useful thing to do. It's quite clear that sex workers are treated uniquely when the concept of "economic coercion" gets introduced, and that indeed "economic coercion" as an idea is quite specific to the topic of prostitution. This makes it quite distinct from the concept of "economic inequality". Time and again, you'll see some well-meaning progressives trying to tell sex workers - regardless of what the sex workers say - that they're economically coerced, that they're victims, that they're being forced into a job that they otherwise would never be willing to do because of its unspecified moral hazard. That's a completely different dialogue from the one directed toward other types of the working poor. If you can't see the difference there, at least as presented in a conceptual form, then you're unequipped to be discussing these sorts of issues. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Oh, I think where we may be talking at cross-purposes is that i"m not claiming this of all employers of undocumented aliens. However, in the cases where the economic coercion results in an abusive and highly exploitative environment, then definitely. To be clear, you don't think that someone who hires undocumented aliens and then uses economic coercion in order to deny them raises and disallow them from leaving should be put into prison? I bet you do, and that's economic coercion. That isn't economic coercion at all, since the coercive element is the abusive boss and lack of documentation, not the paycheck. The word for what you're describing is blackmail, and it's completely separate from the idea of economic coercion. quote:As I said, I do think prostitution is treated differently because economic exploitation in sex work winds up with lots of people getting raped. I do think that makes it different, because we generally regard rape as different from other physical assaults and injuries. As I said, I think that you can argue against this viewpoint, but it's hardly some weird, bug-eyed inconsistency, it's based on the fact that we tend to hold rape and sexual abuse to different standards than physical abuse. If you want to argue about that, go for it.. Again, this sort of objection is founded upon concepts that are tangential to the concept of economic coercion. Yes, prostitutes who are being constantly raped are being exploited - but at that point it isn't "economic coercion" so much as it is simply physical coercion. The concept of economic coercion is vested in the idea that sex workers are invariably victimized by circumstance and economic opportunity alone - absent any separate action by others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 16:44
|
|