this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
114 points (93.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43978 readers
573 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People regain the ability to agree to disagree, and stop hating each other over political issues.
What would that look like? I'm a trans woman. When someone is standing there trying to take my rights away, and actively working to remove my access to care and support, what does "agree to disagree" look like?
"I accept your right to be what you want to be and don't care about it anymore. I am sorry for all of the damage I caused by getting so invested in an issue that has nothing to do with me."
That would be nice, but to be fair, it's also a bit more than "agree to disagree"
I feel like that one could go wrong. There's regions where slavery is still de-facto legal, isn't it awful to just let that slide as their opinion?
You mean the United States of America, right? Because slavery is still legal here.
Sure, if you count prisoners. The US has a ridiculous prison population and a lot of them are made to work; sometimes even for private entities.
Point made, back to the topic.
Isn't slavery universally panned, though?
Nope. Well, mostly, but there are a few regions where the tradition is still going. Mauritania only banned slavery in like 2003, and the law is basically a joke. Foreign journalists will tell stories about visiting and being served by rough people dressed in rags, until the host notices them staring and gets nervous.
The gulf states are also famous for having slaves, although in that case it has more to do with cost savings and a lack of scruples, and I don't think they would call them slaves, just workers-who-have-to-work-and-can't-leave. There's various forms of forced labour in probably most places too, but it's a matter of definition if prison labour or indentured labour count as slavery (which is usually what they're counting when they put out figures with a giant number of modern slaves).
I wonder what it would take to completely erase the practice from the human condition.
A few more decades, assuming all goes well and there's a crackdown on places like the gulf (that situation only exists because the US military umbrella protects the local royals). Mauritania is not a populous country, and in other poor countries you have to go seriously backwoods before people are able to even somewhat-openly keep slaves, so it's not like the progress made is negligible.
And of course there's cases where some guy (or guys) lock somebody in their basement, but if it's ended and the offenders punished immediately upon it coming to light, I'd argue we should count that as a sort of background noise that can't be avoided.
You could roll back the internet to pre 2.0, removing the ability for people to engage with each other outside of real life.
And religious beliefs