No state has a longer, more profit-driven history of contracting prisoners out to private companies than Alabama. With a sprawling labor system that dates back more than 150 years — including the brutal convict leasing era that replaced slavery — it has constructed a template for the commercialization of mass incarceration.
Most jobs are inside facilities, where the state’s inmates — who are disproportionately Black — can be sentenced to hard labor and forced to work for free doing everything from mopping floors to laundry. But more than 10,000 inmates have logged a combined 17 million work hours outside Alabama’s prison walls since 2018, for entities like city and county governments and businesses that range from major car-part manufacturers and meat-processing plants to distribution centers for major retailers like Walmart, the AP determined.
So like, you're okay with slavery then? Is that the practical upshot?
You are just doing black & white thinking. There's no room here for the idea that some forms of slavery are worse than others, even if they are all bad. This is pants-first-then-shoes basic stuff, and you're tripping and falling flat on your face because you can't get it right.
And thank you for laying out that as long as some paper-thin justification is given, you're fine with slavery. Hell, you went as far as to say they're better off in prison because they're kept. That's literally one of the old defences for chattel slavery.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but someone looking for excuses for prison slavery isn't going to be a very nice person, or very good at reasoning. People with your level of miseducation are unfortunately far too common.
No, The practical upshot (apart from reading comprehension) is that prison labor is being mis-defined as "slavery" to make objections to it sound stronger. IMO that devalues people who have experienced real slavery. There's nothing wrong with objecting to prison labor, just don't call it "slavery" because it isn't. That's my point, my whole point and my only point here. No need to turn it into anything else.
Okay, you are wrong for the reasons I have outlined and you have failed to address.
You could address them, but that would require you to engage your much-vaunted reading comprehension to understand what I have written, which you don't seem interested in doing.
You are correct. I didn't read past, "So like, you’re okay with slavery then? Is that the practical upshot?" We are having two different conversations, and I'm not interested in the one where you start off putting words in my mouth. I won't be replying to you anymore.
See, that's just wrong. I showed you an example where slavery is used to mean "wage slavery", even though you seemed to be using that concept as an absurd result that proves that prison labour isn't slavery. The term has been around since at least the 1700s.
You then accused me of redefining words to mean whatever I want, even though that's exactly what you are doing. You then declined to defend your thesis on the basis that I lacked "reading comprehension" and various other insults, which aren't really arguments.