The purchase and sale of humans, or the lack of such transactions is a meaningless distinction?
by which definition of slavery do we have “purchase and sale of humans” as part of that definition?!
Article 1(1) of the 1926 Slavery Convention: “Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”
just because you are not purchased/sold does not mean your condition cannot be defined as slavery
Yes, it's my opinion that it's meaningless pedantry to argue involuntary servitude is not included in the definition of slavery when used in casual speech on a forum.
I don't believe there's a need to soften language to attempt to weaken the narrative of a "prison slavery system". If one is a proponent of forced labor for convicts then just say so: plenty of people will agree (and plenty will disagree).
Reminds me of the progressives trying to say words are violent just like fists, knives, and bullets are. But we're all vibes these days, and no science or empiricism.
Given the for-profit prisons, it comes very close to being the purchase and sale of humans.
It's not full chattel slavery such as was legal before the 13th Amendment, but the word "slavery" has always encompassed definitions short of that, e.g. in ancient Rome.
by which definition of slavery do we have “purchase and sale of humans” as part of that definition?!
Article 1(1) of the 1926 Slavery Convention: “Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”
just because you are not purchased/sold does not mean your condition cannot be defined as slavery