Comment by somrand0 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by somrand0 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think I added far too much perspective... so this comment may as well go unwritten, but whatever... reddit shadowbanned so many replies like these, because replying under a -4 points comment was still too visible. hn, otoh doesn't notify of replies so that covers the visibility reduction.

I'm trying to understand what "public" means..

an employee is a public slave. also, don't undermine the meaning of my qualification of "partial"... I'm not saying they're the same thing

but I'm also observing the necessity of there being a lot of people without enough choice/privilege/safety-nets to say "NO, I won't take that job ever"

furthermore I'm thinking (trying to) in terms applicable to entire countries. slavery is often portrayed a an individual phenomenon. but what about a scenario when one country employs another entire country? without much choice about the terms? like, for example during a colonial period?

The difference between employment and slavery is the same as between rape and normal sex: Consent.

The consensual and forced versions can involve the same activities, but morally there is a big difference.

It's true that you may need to work to afford food and housing etc. But to me, that's just the human condition. We all need certain things, and most of them we need the help of other people to get.

Work and money is how we help each other and make sure everyone contributes.

consider people working at an amazon warehouse ..

those companies rely on there existing an entire class of people unable to refuse to get into a job where they may get in trouble for taking too long of a bathroom break; those people are clearly employees.

a less famous example would be people picking apples, or working in a meat packing factory.

where's the consent to exist in a situation that prevents refusing some jobs? jobs without which everything would get way more expensive for the privileged american consumer.

in any case, I don't think I can argue my perspective to you any better than this; we all believe (and notice) whatever we want and makes us feel alright.

it truly is a consequence of privilege that you see work and money as a way to collaborate and work together, because as I understand them, money is a social technology, hence it can be used as it has in your experience, as well as used to exploit and coerce people into crappy scenarios for the sake of the 'consumer's experience'

"without much choice about the terms? like, for example during a colonial period?"

Does that apply to you or the sports journalist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com