Slave or Enslaved Person? (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

What's the difference between an "employed person" and an "employee" ?

is your wife referred to as "Mrs. SystemShock"?

 

[gavinj]

You're gonna want to read up on verbals and get back to me.

Nah, not really.

 

[SystemShock]

This isn't an equivalent argument.

Yes, it is.
And employed person is an employee, an enslaved person is a slave.

The question should be "What is the difference between the relationship between 'employed person' and 'employee' versus the relationship between 'enslaved person' and 'slave'"?

The reason we're not changing "employee" to "employed person" but we are changing "slave" to "enslaved person" is because of the differences in power, agency, and historical context.

Slavery already denotes a condition forced upon an individual. Changing "slave" to "enslaved person" doesn't change anything.

 

[brandon8283]

And employed person is an employee, an slaved person is a slave.

Slavery already denotes a condition forced upon an individual. Changing "slave" to "enslaved person" doesn't change anything.

You're gonna want to read up on nuance and get back to me.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

please explain

1) Generally speaking, why use 2 words when 1 will do?

2) Nobody who uses the word "slave" in a history class describing the slave trade is under the misconception that that status was anything other than involuntary. It an unnecessary and muddying reformulation of an easily understood concept that, in this case, creates a distraction from the topic and tries to catch the speaker out. It seems to assume that one supports the institution of slavery by using the word "slave," which is, indeed, silly. Michelle Obama repeatedly used to refer to the WH as "a house built by slaves."

As it relates to my kid, its another PC moment that sent his eyes rolling to the back of his head. His school is unintentionally creating a crop of anti-progressives (not sure what term to use - MAGA, conservative, anti-PC).

 

[brandon8283]

Nah, not really.

Sounds like someone who read up on verbals and realized that he was completely incorrect.

 

[SystemShock]

false equivalency

It is not.

in both there is the implication of choice on both sides

There is no such implication

I reiterate, slavery already denotes a forced condition upon an individual.

 

[jboss]

*old guy voice* I don't like change

 

[SystemShock]

You're gonna want to read up on nuance and get back to me.

Serves me right for replying to you.

You're gonna want to read up on the definition of slavery and get back to me.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

It is not.


There is no such implication

I reiterate, slavery already denotes a forced condition upon an individual.

you haven't addressed the "Mrs SystemShock" question
you are saying there is no difference between "the wife of SystemShock" and "Mrs SystemShock" and the last 50 years tells you you are incorrect - people (not just women) have seen a profound difference in those two phrases

 

[SystemShock]

is your wife referred to as "Mrs. SystemShock"?

Funnily enough, people assume my last name is my wife's last name

 

[jboss]

Serves me right for replying to you.

You're gonna want to read up on the definition of slavery and get back to me.

You say "intellectually disabled/challenged" or you still drop R bombs?

 

[brandon8283]

1) Generally speaking, why use 2 words when 1 will do?

Because one word does not effectively communicate the desired empathetic nuance and historical context in today's perspective on slavery. Language evolves. It's why we've gone from "Indians" to "Native Americans" or even "Indigenous Peoples." One word got across what we were talking about, but there's more effective ways of communicating than relying on the checkered history of "Indians."

2) Nobody who uses the word "slave" in a history class describing the slave trade is under the misconception that that status was anything other than involuntary. It an unnecessary and muddying reformulation of an easily understood concept that, in this case, creates a distraction from the topic and tries to catch the speaker out. It seems to assume that one supports the institution of slavery by using the word "slave," which is, indeed, silly. Michelle Obama repeatedly used to refer to the WH as "a house built by slaves."

See above. Martin Luther King also frequently referred to black people as "negroes." Language evolves.

As it relates to my kid, its another PC moment that sent his eyes rolling to the back of his head. His school is unintentionally creating a crop of anti-progressives (not sure what term to use - MAGA, conservative, anti-PC).

Being introduced to new ideas only creates anti-progressive tendencies if you refuse to consider that you might still have yet more to learn.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

You say "intellectually disabled/challenged" or you still drop R bombs?

Just FYI in the context of this conversation, you are arguing for the use of "persons who are r-word" instead of "r-word."

 

[SystemShock]

you haven't addressed the "Mrs SystemShock" question
you are saying there is no difference between "the wife of SystemShock" and "Mrs SystemShock" and the last 50 years tells you you are incorrect - people (not just women) have seen a profound difference in those two phrases

That's not relevant to what we are discussing, as your example relates to the institution of marriage, and the equality of men and women (and whatever gender you want to throw in there).

Slavery, on the other hand, unless you are an apologist , has always denoted a forced upon condition. If we didn't know what slavery was, if we didn't know the definition of slavery, you may have a point. But we very well know the definition of slavery, and what it denotes.