Hacker News Reader

Comment by marknutter | Hacker News Reader

That's not slavery, it's kidnapping, plain and simple. It's illegal and not condoned in any way by the U.S. government or society at large, so comparing it to slavery is a bit hyperbolic. But yes, it still sucks

View on HN

Since when did slavery not involve kidnapping?

Slavery isn't defined as an inherently legal practice, it simply was legal in some places at some times.

The secondarily linked story does also talk about local law enforcement being involved, so that is at least condoned "in a way", not "not in any way".

Slavery doesn't involve kidnapping if there is a legal framework for selling people (which by definition isn't kidnapping).

Are you talking about people born into slavery? Like from slave parents. Because the transition from non slave to slave is some form of kidnapping/trafficking.

The conversion of something to property is almost always a theft of some sort.

I think the Romans could sell their family members into slavery to pay off debts, etc.

Or themselves.

Debt slavery[1] doesn't involve kidnapping (by any conventional definition). It's probably the most common kind of slavery these days.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

There are people in the South Asian sub continent as well as SEAsia where families will sell other members into slavery for varying economic and social reasons. It involves no kidnapping. Sometimes it's for very menial and manual labor (tea picking, for example, next time someone enjoys some Assam tea) or are later sold into human trafficking rings.

Being illegal or not condoned doesn't make it not slavery. These enterprises often operate in gray regions of the law and find ways to blur the lines between slavery and employment, so it's important not to throw away the label just because it's not officially condoned.

World rejoices as first-worlder solves slavery problem. Millions of slaves around the world now considered free under new definition

Humans held and treated like property will henceforth not be considered slaves if their country has laws against the practice. When asked how he came upon the genius solution to the century-old problem, marknutter nodded at the portrait of former President G.W. Bush hanging above his fireplace. "I was inspired by President Bush... I mean... enhanced interrogation... genius!"

Mission Accomplished!

I'm sorry I have a strong aversion to hyperbole, but if you're going to compare the situations outlined in the article to slavery you're going to have to lump a lot of other stuff into the slavery pile as well. It's important to preserve the weight of words lest you further increase people's apathy.

I agree with this 100%. There are a lot of previously useful words that mean almost nothing today. "Slavery" is one. "Rape" is another. I know people think they're doing good when they try to expand the definition like that, but all they're really doing is taking away our capacity to describe things accurately.

This seems like pure uncivil sarcasm, rather than anything constructive. If you think that marknutter's insistence on precise useage of words causes additional harm to those enslaved (by strict or loose definition), or prevents their liberation, then why not explain that rather than sneering at him?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com