hE wAs FrEe To qUiT tHe OnLy JoB iN hIs ToWn (and therefore go hungry) At aNy TiMe 
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
62 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15916 readers
4 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Liberals learn what coercion is challenge
According to libs, it's only coercion if the state makes it illegal. Anything else is "the consequences of your decision and therefore your fault." I have been unironically told this by more than one.
I got told by a liberal once that coercion doesn't exist unless someone physically manipulates your hands and feet like a puppet. Even someone pointing a gun at you isn't coercion because you can apparently just choose to die. I don't know where these people come from.
They are referring to Sartre's belief in the concept of 'radical freedom'. Sartre, whom would infamously with his partner, sleep with his college age female students and then abandon them when he got bored with them. Look, as much fun as we make of the old 'power dynamics' conversation, there are areas where than absolutely comes into play.
Your missing the point. It was not slavery, just simple child labour
OK, it's fine then.
A description you can't argue with -- that's still horrible! -- is the way to go here. "Child labor in a mine" is just that. No normal person will defend it.
You lose people when you get six hypotbeticals deep into a philosophical question about the definition of slavery, as you see in that thread. It doesn't matter if you have a point if people write you off when you say it. Step Zero is getting people to consider what you have to say; rhetoric and communication strategies actually matter.
Cause it ain't slavery he wasn't another person's property, was he exploited under capitalism sure but there's a big difference between being a paid laborer and a literal slave
Is there really though? Can you honestly call wage labor a choice when the only alternative is starving to death on the streets?
The wage labour is just renting a slave instead of buying.
If I didn't currently have a ban I'd ask this person whether they think a child can consent.
And their response?:
