Philip Oakley:

Philip, how does avoiding use of the word help those who have suffered or do suffer from slavery?

Ahh, the 'facemask' conundrum.  You are pushing the wrong end of the piece of string. It's the deliberate and potentially malicious use of the word to pretend that those who have 'slave' ancestry are to be considered as simply inanimate objects by association that is the issue. At some point it's simply a level of indifference to the effect on others.


In essence it's no different to having children clean under the working looms in the mills of the past. Children were cheap, easily produced and disposable..  Not.


We have better alternatives, lets use them. E2, E1, D1-3, etc.

Philip, you have a very odd perspective, at least from my point of view. My use of the term "slave" to describe the behaviour of an inanimate object in no way encourages or supports slavery. I don't believe that eradicating the word does anything to eradicate the phenomenon, it simply sweeps it under the carpet.

Philip Oakley:

Philip, how does avoiding use of the word help those who have suffered or do suffer from slavery?

Ahh, the 'facemask' conundrum.  You are pushing the wrong end of the piece of string. It's the deliberate and potentially malicious use of the word to pretend that those who have 'slave' ancestry are to be considered as simply inanimate objects by association that is the issue. At some point it's simply a level of indifference to the effect on others.


In essence it's no different to having children clean under the working looms in the mills of the past. Children were cheap, easily produced and disposable..  Not.


We have better alternatives, lets use them. E2, E1, D1-3, etc.

Philip, you have a very odd perspective, at least from my point of view. My use of the term "slave" to describe the behaviour of an inanimate object in no way encourages or supports slavery. I don't believe that eradicating the word does anything to eradicate the phenomenon, it simply sweeps it under the carpet.