I know we're getting deep in the meta discussion but the free will that you're describing involves basically starving to death. Sure, you can walk away but unless you're well off, we all basically live in the same society that makes sure you are ALWAYS dependent on some kind of wage. You cannot live off the land, build housing, or eat food without some kind of income in the modern world. And thus the concept of wage slave.
But wage slavery, while bad, isn't slavery still. In slavery proper, the option of walking away straight up doesn't exist. In fact, in extreme cases, even the option of dying might not be available.
It is slavery. Chattel slavery is much more severe than what we normally consider slavery. Yet “slavery” and chattel slavery are both still slavery. The reason what you’re saying is so accepted is because we are currently living under a universal liberal world order that says wage slavery id freedom.
I hope you notice I didn't mention chattel slavery. Even prior to it, all forms of slavery were about removing the agency of person and subjugating the will of the slave to the owner. That requires an active action.
Not hiring someone is a passive action. As said by many, you are not entitled to a wage. In fact, suggesting otherwise would actually require slavery. Wage slavery, instead, is a description of a particular material condition of destitution, not necessarily connected to the ethical evaluation to proper slavery.
No one says "wage slavery is freedom". What the "universal liberal world", that is, the pro-free market side says is that people should be free to associate with each other as they see fit. Being hired to provide labor in exchange for wage, the basis for wage work, is merely an extension of this. While wage work is a requirement for wage slavery, at no point economic liberals said that everyone should live under wage slavery conditions.
The common, orthodixical, sociological/economical meaning of the word "wage slavery" is about being paid, on average, barely enough to make a living, i.e. destitution in the conventional sense.
I suppose you are referring to the Marxist meaning, technically (at least as far as I know) original, meaning. First, Marxist economics are considered heterodoxical nowadays. Second, it is still about "destitution", in the sense that the working class is formally destitute of the means of production, requiring to sell their labor to have access to it. If that's the case, I hope you notice that weakens your point of "wage slavery being a form of slavery", as you lose the analogy of proper material conditions.
i feel this totally ignored the point of infinite input space. you only providing 3 scenarios and eye balls rigorous comment is either hilariously patronizing or ironically self aggrandizing.
Agree with you and your responses in the threads elsewhere.
There seems to be a point of contention amongst the terminology for anybody with autism. Someone with autism might not see themselves as having a disorder. But there are certainly very high needs autistic individuals. Apply a whole spectrum of people as being "developed wrong" and you can start to see ableist language.
I appreciated your metaphor about cars on a highway -- and that there's something wrong with the highway, not the car. I thought it was really simple and clear and I think I got the point you were trying to make. And even if it the highway isn't wrong (it was made for cars after all), we should at least extend it to support many types of transportation.
Masonry grid layout was one of a few interviewing pair programming tests I would give to frontend engineers. I need to see how this works under the hood!
Didn't really come off as design-y or antithetical form and definitely not manipulating lol, maybe a little poetic or artsy fartsy. Agree that it's important and deep.
Same. It looks like the author is playing with poetry to me. They're clearly playing with the stanza with the similar lines and the contrasting lines. Yeah, it's amateur, but who cares? It tracks with the message.
If anything I think the GP's comment is an example of a thin desire. Being nitpicky/petty to justify internalizing and actually reading the post. There's no lines to read between here, it's plain as day. We are addicted to dismissing things because it's gratifying and easy. It's trivial to find errors or complaints about anything, but it's difficult to actually critique. I'd argue in our thin desires we've conflated the two. It's cargo cult intellectualism. Complaints look similar to critiques in form but they lack the substance, the depth.
i think there are internationally recognized lawful terminology that several institutions and countries recognize that permit the use of "act of war" and "terrorism". but at any given time a country _does_ act of war/terrorism, they likely would deny claims of terrorism if it was recognized as terrorism by said institutions.
