[d0lph]

Interesting it's allowed for by the 13th amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

edit: don't be so harsh on yourself, establishing a comparison between penal labor and slavery is an interesting point, even if you did so in a non chalant manner

[giarc]

Except the firefighting job isn't a punishment of a crime. They are volunteering for this job, no one is making them do it.

[UncleEntity]

My uncle used to love fire season back in his convict days so he could get out into nature and have something to pass the time.

[hnbroseph]

"volunteering"... you can do nothing in a cage (while under threat of violence and abuse given the environment) or get a shiny nickel for doing a day's backbreaking labor, and some exploitive corp makes bank by saving on salary costs. deeply, thoroughly disgusting.

[oarsinsync]

Unsure if fiction and reality are aligned here, but at least in Orange is the new Black, inmates are deemed incapable of giving consent (when considering sexual relations with guards).

If that’s true, does it extend out past sexual activities through to workplace choices? Do they actually have a choice, do they actually consent? What’s the difference? Where’s the line?

[dba7dba]

In Netflix 'Fire Camp' doc, there's a section on inmates who join to fight fires. From what I could see, they inmates have to pass strict conditioning/training to actually work as a fire fighter.

I'd guess if one didn't want to do it, he/she could just slack off and not join.

Look it up and watch the show if you can.

[oarsinsync]

There’s a documentary on Netflix called 13th that discusses this very point in much more depth. Despite the somber and serious nature, it’s a surprisingly light watch.

Check out “13TH” on Netflix https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741

[gwbas1c]

I'm glad you posted that. I was about to post that the inmates should sue claiming that they are slaves.

I wonder if someone who understands the law better than I could could argue that they were not "duly convicted."

[chrischen]

Combined with the systematic targeted incarceration of black people and they’ve basically figured out a loop hole to the abolition of slavery.

[blankname]

Who is "they"? I'll be honest, most people who use vague terms like this and act like there is a segment of society out to get them seem like Alex Jones to me

[chrischen]

For starters, Richard Nixon: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

Source above is provided for your convenience.

You can't just identify who "they" are because it's not black and white like the way they targeted black people. It extends from Nixon to Nixon supporters, white people, Asian people, cops, robbers, and even other black people. It can include all those people but not necessarily every of those people. This is because it's not a distinct group targeting black people, but a way of thinking. Obviously by paying taxes I also help support the system to some degree.

The problem can even be as innocuous as the unintentional indirect disenfranchisement of black people by simply doing "favors" or preferring everyone but black people in everyday life.

> ...most people who use vague terms like this and act like there is a segment of society out to get them

I'm not using this term to act like there is a segment of society out to get me (what I assume you mean when you said "people" and "them".). I'm using "they" to describe the group disenfranchising "black people" who are a group that is distinct from anything that I identify as (racially at least)... The reason why I say a vague "they" is because this group cannot be defined simply by a 1-dimensional construct such as skin color, ethnicity, political party, etc. I don't think it does any good to describe them as "racists" either as many people will discriminate unknowingly, unintentionally, simply due to it being the predominant normal behavior. This "they" can be white, Asian, police, a drug gang, even other black people... because it describes a mindset that systematically discriminates and disenfranchise a group based on their outward characteristics rather than evaluating them as individuals. Does it blow your mind that one can observe such discrimination without being the direct target of it? Because in the end it's not really an attack on black people, it's just an attack, and such a thing can happen to any group, and has.

[zapita]

Maybe that's because you're part of a privileged group that doesn't experience discrimination and targeted hate every day? For you, the idea of a segment of society being out to get you is a delusion. For millions of others, it's a concrete reality. If you're in a minority group in the US, you know exactly who "they" are in the parent's sentence.

[hnbroseph]

alternatively, the demand for specific individuals as a retort is a sort of dissembling misdirection. "they" doesn't generally mean very specific individuals, but systems, processes "the powers that be", etc.

[zapita]

I don't know why you're being downvoted (or perhaps I am not willing to face the obvious answer...). What you're saying is an objective fact. Both the political intent of re-implementing slavery by other means, and the effective result, are well documented.