[ SECRET POST #6463 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6463 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #924.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Vent thread

[(Anonymous)]

I'm unconvinced, anon. There's aguably a more direct parallel between wage labor and Corvee labor (part-time slavery), but that's hairsplitting.

Also, unless you happen to be part of the idle rich, yourself, I'm unclear on why your life would be better if people would stop saying this. Are they embarassing you with their bluntness? Are they expecting you to do their work as well because they hate their jobs?

Re: Vent thread

[(Anonymous)]

I don’t care how much of an asshole your manager is. He can’t breed you to someone in accounting and then sell the kids to ensure he hits his quarterly target.

Maybe look into indentured servitude or feudalism if you need analogies for your quest for wage equity and work-life balance.

Re: Vent thread

[(Anonymous)]

Human breeding is mostly a hallmark of places where mixed-sex, forced work coincides with farm work ... and by that logic, men are arguably "less enslaved" than women, simply because they can't get pregnant.

People are going to keep calling the false choice between starvation and employment slavery because this underscores their moral right to fight their own oppression. And I still don't see why you should feel like that is in any way bad for you.

The bits you're pointing at here and downthread to go "but it's not REALLY slavery ..." are far from universal. A lot of slaves aren't bred. Some slaves aren't beaten, and lot of non-slaves have been. Where it was more expedient to incentivize slaves with wages, money was mixed in. And any history of 'public slavery' would lay to rest the notion that slaves have to have a single master in order to be slaves. Perhaps you can set your definitions in such a way that it would include most slavery and exclude most wage labor, but again, why would you?

There've been slave systems where a slave who earned enough money to resort to the courts could get themselves transferred to a different master, but that seems like a pretty perverse and miserable distinction to draw for what supposedly makes a person "free."