Even if you think of a slave not as a human being but as, say,

Learn some history. The actual treatment of slaves varied massively from culture to culture, in some better, in some worse.

Although saying that, even the best treated slaves in history still weren't in a particularly enviable position.

>>53274623
>So why do slaves, who are are capable of empathy, speech, and everything that make us human get treated worse than a mechanic's favorite wrench?
Because slaves are disposable. Dogs, partners or nice tools are not.
There is no emotional attachment involved and one slave is indistinguishable from another from the owner's viewpoint.

>>53274623
Might be considered some kind of hidden morality thing. Like the people who owned slaves, even if they said otherwise, knew what they were doing was kind of fucked up.

At the very least I'd posit this: a dog could never overthrow you and take your place. Even historical groups who believed slaves were of lesser stock realized that they were extremely dangerous, and so likely took efforts to beat them down.

Which of course only made them more likely to rebel, but hey, that's humanity for you. Stupid and pointlessly cruel. When robots become sapient they'll probably not even go full terminator until some idiot decides to preemptive strike them.

File: CnmrfoKXEAAo7ED.jpg (89KB, 512x640px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 512x640px

>>53274714
>When robots become sapient they'll probably not even go full terminator until some idiot decides to preemptive strike them.

They'll have it coming

>>53274623
Because most writers use slaves as plot devices instead of actual characters. If someone has slaves, he definitely is torturing them and is evil. If someone is a slave, you need to feel bad for them. Doesn't help that most slave depictions are those of either blacks gathering cotton or galleon oarsmen who shit their own pants.

Some slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were actually respected and given some privileges among other less fortunate slaves, because they would teach children reading and theater. Some would even buy off their slave statue and become actual citizens.

But you know, we need to show how everything that we don't find okay in a modern society is wrong forever and is the same static shit everywhere.

Bonus Fact: The slaves that built the pyramids were well fed and protected, because bony bastards can't fucking push rocks.

>>53274623
Most dogs have an overwhelming sense of loyalty for their owners. Hell, if you can stomach it, look at some animal abuse stories. It's fascinating how so many dogs, after having their shit kicked in, starved, mutilated and chained outside for weeks or months in a confined space still treat their owners with love, respect and loyalty. It's fucked up.

>>53274623
Slave owners didn't think of their slaves as a nice tool. They thought of them as lazy bums that needed to be beaten, whipped, and terrorized in order to get them to work.

Think of it this way: The most intolerable thing possible in a religion is someone who is almost the same as you but not quite. A heretic who shares 90% of your beliefs is far more loathsome than a heathen who shares only 20% of your beliefs. To the slave owner, the slave is almost a person, but not quite. They can do some of the things a person can, but the slave owner believes that they are nothing but shambling, loathsome mockeries of real people. To the slave owner, the slave was worse than a beast of burden, because they were just human enough to be detestable.

Slave owners did see their slaves as something more than tools or beasts of burden, because amongst other things slaves could clearly do things like speak. But slave owners did not see their slaves as their equals or worthy of any sort of dignified treatment. They saw their slaves as the lowest and most detestable sort of people, and that made it easier to mistreat them than it would be to mistreat a draft animal or an inanimate object.

File: b3a.jpg (24KB, 229x343px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 229x343px

>>53274763
My ex's ex strangled his dogs pups.
That dog was whimpering while people were taking it away from him. That shit's not okay.

File: Alfred_-_Batman_66.jpg (31KB, 485x447px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 485x447px

>>53274835
>They thought of them as lazy bums that needed to be beaten


If Alfred was a slave, would it change anything?
Would Batman beat him? For what reason? Slaves can be loyal and caring, to claim otherwise would be to deprive slaves of their humanity.

>>53274885

As has been clearly evidenced by this thread, a lot of people are ignorant of slavery in any form outside of the one practised in the American south.

>Have an Elf slave
>Don't beat her

Is something...wrong with me?

>>53274902
If you fuck her - and you surely do - it's almost the same thing.

>>53274927
What if she was the one who asked first?
What if gentle loving kisses are involved?

>>53274885
> If Alfred was a slave,
He wasn't. Moreover, the character lives in a society that roundly condemns both slavery and the sort of treatment associated with it.
> would it change anything?
Yes, because a number of underlying aspects of the society that he lives in would need to change in order for him to be a slave.

> Slaves can be loyal and caring
Never said otherwise. Just that the slave owner will perceive them as lazy bums. That was one of the things that allowed the institution to persist. The engrained belief among slave owners that their slaves were lazy bums who *needed* to be enslaved for the sake of everyone involved. It was wrong, both morally and factually, but that is what they believed and that is how they justified slavery to themselves and to other members of their society.

The righteous indignation towards slavery is based off the assumption that people deserve freedom and respect. While an admirable ethical standpoint, it's hardly representative of the most of human history, including most of the modern world.

In medieval societies pretty much all the lower class people had no freedom to move, either socially or geographically but they weren't slaves.

>>53274899
A lot of forms of slavery were even worse. Just look at the sugar plantations of the Caribbean, or the silver mines in Spanish controlled South America.

The idea that slavery as an institution doesn't inherently lead to abuse is a fantasy. The imbalance of power in the relationship naturally fosters horrible mistreatment.

>>53274623
>So why do slaves, who are are capable of empathy, speech, and everything that make us human get treated worse than a mechanic's favorite wrench?

They aren't. Slaves were often treated well, better than freemen; and at a minimum had economic security and even healthcare plan equivalents of the time.

"Slavery is horrible" is a mix of horror stories and propaganda from the American civil war and general ignorance about global history.

File: MAD2.jpg (26KB, 200x325px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 200x325px

>>53274863
I came here for a comfy board not to feel the urge to slaughter the human race

Many slave owners don't think they're mistreating them. They may even see it as charitable, that they give someone food and shelter in return for some basic tasks. And if they're treated a bit roughly at times, well, that's just how it's always been. You have to be stern but fair or the lower classes will fall into sloth and gluttony and all that you know.

At other times attachment may be stave doff y keeping your distance, and having a high turnover. You don't really interact with your slaves, the foreman does. Or the capo. It might not be slavery at all, just an employment contract that happens to be in your favour.

But they're still denying them having a life of their own.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/lolas-story/524490/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark is one take on it.

>>53275016

I don't disagree with you. Some were far, far worse, and all involved their abuses. But so many people in this thread are making very specific assumptions about how things worked which are rooted in US slavery rather than looking at the breadth of it.

>>53275036
>Many slave owners don't think they're mistreating them. They may even see it as charitable, that they give someone food and shelter in return for some basic tasks. And if they're treated a bit roughly at times, well, that's just how it's always been. You have to be stern but fair or the lower classes will fall into sloth and gluttony and all that you know.

How is it different from interaction between nobles and lower class freemen? As long as there is a hierarchy of classes in society, this interaction will exist.

>>53275076
People who don't into history think that noblesse oblige didn't exist between the owner/slave classes.

Sometimes it didn't - usually it did.

>>53275190

Although it's worse being clear that there were always exceptions. Decent slaveowners even in the worst cultures, absolute monsters even in the 'best' (as much as you can call any kind of slavery best).

File: 1443326394745.png (378KB, 597x800px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 597x800px

>>53274957
You fucked up.

Oh boy, here come the slavery apologists. Riddle me this: if in these so-called benevolent slave societies slaves had it so good, why was it that there was always some way for a master to legally commit violence against a slave, or why there were slave runaways and rebellions in all of these societies.
inb4
>the slaves didn't know how good they had it!

Tell you what. If you believe this, I'm offering you a chance to be my slave. I promise I'll be real good to you.

>>53275019
Go back to Mississippi

>>53275226

Nobody is saying any slave owning society was in any way good. But even when talking about something as vile as slavery, a degree of nuance is necessary. Some slave owning cultures were significantly less abusive than others. 'Better' does not mean 'good'.

>>53275226
>what is tax evasion
>what is eminent domain

Wave your gold-fringed Admiralty flag a bit harder m8.

>>53275076
Serfs weren't much better off than slaves. About the only difference was that the "owner" wasn't physically around them so much, leaving them more to their own devices and beating them less.

>>53275302
What the fuck are you even going on about?

>>53275323
The moral of the story is that classless society is the only moral society. If achieving a classless society means letting a necromancer kill the king and turn everyone into equal zombies, so be it.

>>53275360
But even then you'll have the necromancer on top, probably beating the zombies around whenever he feels they've failed him.

Slavery was not a tool of oppression for the vast majority of cultures and history, contrary to the zeitgeist these days about it. Freedom as an ideal is a funny joke when applied to places and eras where there was no such thing as having the option to choose your lifestyle because if you weren't out there farming every single day, you wouldn't have enough food for the winter.

Entering into slavery was a means of ensuring your family would have food to eat because your master had an obligation to ensure you are not malnourished. Furthermore, slaves had numerous important rights to property, safety, and family that were recognized in Greece, Rome, Persia, Egypt, even the otherwise barbaric and brutal caliphates. In certain city-states in Greece, like Sparta, slaves made up as much as 90% of the population. And every single one of those slaves were valued as vital farmers, doctors, educators, carpenters, and what have you.

The slavery of the colonial era was marked by particularly severe cruelty due to a variety of economic and social motivations; Slaves were cheap as hell, easy to replace, and not of the same race as the owner. Moreover, as time passed and industrialization allowed great swathes of the population to pursue less laborious careers, the abundance of food and basic necessities led to a gradual shift in the general public's attitudes towards such things as freedom which had always been regarded as a great ideal to strive towards, even if it was hardly practical.

It was not long after that slavery was abolished in most of Europe, and soon, the US as well. Now we live in a world where the mere idea of being beholden to others for anything, even something as superficial as financial debt, is seen as a horrific thing. To not be in control of one's own life is terrifying to most first world citizens, even though such an idea is laughable as it presumes we have the capacity to control the events and people around us to any meaningful degree.

>>53275405
Can't rule the zombies if you kill yourself after necromancing them.

>>53275408
As usual, capitalism is the real villain xD

>>53275457
Nah, the real villain is all the assholes that treat the rest of the world like dogshit and try to justify it with b-but I'm just a successful capitalist I dindu nuffin

>>53275457

As someone who was once a stupid young liberal, and is now an older better educated liberal, capitalism gets a really bad fucking rap.

If you actually look at the principles behind it, it makes a fuckton of sense, and a huge number of the abuses and bullshit that people blame it is actively against the ideals of the philosophy.

Capitalism isn't the problem, it's greedy fuckwits and people without integrity hiding behind it as a justification without actually holding to its principles.

>>53274714
>a dog could never overthrow you and take your place
That's what they want us to think.

>>53275408
You talk as if there was no choice other than slavery. Given the existence of masters and free persons, the only funny joke here is you.

>>53275408
>In certain city-states in Greece, like Sparta, slaves made up as much as 90% of the population. And every single one of those slaves were valued as vital farmers, doctors, educators, carpenters, and what have you.
I'm going to stop you right there. The helots of Sparta were treated like human garbage and the whole reasoning behind Sparta's super militaristic society in the first place was so that they would always be strong enough to stop a slave revolt.

>>53274758
Actual fact, the pyramids were build by regular people. Working on the pyramids gave you tax benefits.

>>53274863
>>53274763
I can't quite explain how sad and angry that makes me.

>>53275408
And that's why you feel you should be allowed to own slaves, yeah?

Also the idea that every slave was like "thank fuck I voluntarily entered into this" "at least I don't have to think for myself" "the beatings are bad, but freedom is really laughable when you think hard about it".

>>53275588
There were also periods during Egypt where farmers/surfs were required by the state to work on the pyramids for several weeks / months out of the year as a part of a labor tax.

>>53274623
The dog cost more.

>>53274623
Because I can easily replace a slave like I can repalce a wrench.

>>53275615

>I'll act smug by replying to points nobody else is actually making!

>>53275638
Maybe if it was a super rare breed or some shit, but slaves were expensive as hell in most periods of history.

Especially if the slave had valuable skills or could teach children.

>>53275226
>Oh boy, here come the slavery apologists. Riddle me this: if in these so-called benevolent slave societies slaves had it so good, why was it that there was always some way for a master to legally commit violence against a slave,

Masters needed legal power to discipline their slaves, or else they would have no power to enforce their orders whatsoever. Moreover, there would be no way for them to enforce quality control over their slaves' work. And of course, lastly they would not be able to punish them for crimes they commit, which are the master's responsibility and the master was always liable for what his slave did.

But in most slave-owning societies, very strict standards were held regarding the severity of discipline to the severity of the failing, as not only were slaves expensive to own, thus necessitating care when handling them, slaves also tended to know their masters personally as there were few cases resembling the efficient, brutal, machine-like plantations of the US South during slavery. Owners who treated slaves with unjustified cruelty were usually punished by the state which was all too happy to intervene and confiscate slaves if they could be sold to a more responsible owner and the state could pocket the earnings.

>or why there were slave runaways and rebellions in all of these societies.

That's a fairly loaded question. Why does any society have murders and rapes? Slave-owning societies did keep very good track of things like runaway slaves and rebellions, so we can actually look at their records to determine causes and such. Runaways and rebellions were rather uncommon in Greece and Rome, for example, as slaves did in fact earn wages and own private property. They could even save their money to buy their own freedom, and the freedom of friends or family, but there were large numbers of well-to-do slaves who certainly had the funds to buy their own freedom (like the Greek scholar slaves who taught Roman nobility) yet never did.

>>53274623
the mistreatment of slaves en Europe comes form the Renascence in which the salve owner rarely even seen there slaves. how ever this was the exception even in Europe where most slaves were surfs and enjoyed some freedoms (wern't quite yet expendable and needed to defend the lord's land)

>>53275673
>slave
>earned money
>owned property
>could become free

I know there are more types of slavery than American South slavery, but I feel like we need to define what qualifies a slave at this point. This literally just sounds like an indentured butler. Or anyone who's ever signed a contract.

>>53275659
Nah, they were generally pretty cheap and most dogs that weren't curs would have fetched more than most slaves.

>>53274623
>So why do slaves, who are are capable of empathy, speech, and everything that make us human get treated worse than a mechanic's favorite wrench?
they are too similar to their owners as most of the time the label is the only difference
so the line between master and the slaves is easy to blure out without a strong negative bias

>>53275673
>Runaways and rebellions were rather uncommon in Greece and Rome, for example, as slaves did in fact earn wages and own private property.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of Roman slaves during the Republic were in agricultural or mining work, and they had absolutely zero rights whatsoever. Just look up the Servile Wars - three large-scale revolts all within the span of 100 years.

>>53275499
Just about any philosophy or economic system could be great if people just followed its principles.

>>53275729
Or any slave owning society that wasn't attributed to the new world.

>>53275673
Because other types of labor regimes like salary, wage, lease or in-kind payments just didn't exist at all, no sir, so slavery was the only possible way for a society to function.

Oh wait, that's not the case, and the point you make that violence is inherent to slavery and the power of slave owners is, in fact, only proving my point.

As to your other points, see
>>53275785.
>>53275499

>>53275833
Maybe not the second one I quoted. That was by mistake.

>>53275457

Capitalism is the reason we are currently in such a period of prosperity that I can waste my day arguing about historical slavery versus the exaggerated superstitions about it on an anime image board right now.

>>53275515

For the vast majority of individuals there was no such thing as another choice. The vast majority of arable land was owned by the merchants or the nobility and purchasing any required funds, which required a trade, which required funds to apprentice, which required a trade; to acquire sustenance, the impoverished had little choice but to either live as beggars or become slaves. Like it or not, slaves had considerably more dignity and privileges than beggars. The freemen were typically merchants and tradesmen like smiths and were a very small proportion of the population in all of these societies.

>>53275585

They were hardly treated like 'garbage,' and that's all just a popular myth about the city anyways. Sparta spent more time at war with Athens and other city-states than concerned about its own civil affairs.

>>53275615

Ad hominems and strawmen are the last resort of the uneducated. Beatings were never permitted in these societies without adequate justification, not even in the caliphates where very minor offenses did typically result in brutal reprisals from the master.

>>53274623
If you dehumanize the slave it's easier on the owner, who's opinion is the only one that matters. If you do not dehumanize them, you have to live with the knowledge that you own another feeling, thinking, empathetic human being. That mental toll is huge, therefore, treating a slave worse than a dog is a better idea unless they are a pleasure slave of sorts you wish to have some companionship with.

>>53275729
That's kind of the point though, isn't it? There's far more variety to what being a slave entailed than the type practiced in the US south and Caribbean. Take the Hebrews, for example; their version of slavery was essentially an analogue to modern Welfare in terms of what the master was supposed to provide, and slaves could really only be held for seven years, at which point all debts were forgiven.

But no, the only type of slavery that ever gets shown is the plantation-slavery, or modern-day sex slavery.

>>53274763
So do slaves. Look at what happened with the so-called 'house niggers'. Plenty of cases of black slaves who grew attached to their masters and felt genuine compassion for them. They had plenty of chances to get their revenge, and were regularly in position where they could kill or injure their captors (such as shaving them), yet they didn't.

>>53275855
>Capitalism is the reason we are currently in such a period of prosperity that I can waste my day arguing about historical slavery versus the exaggerated superstitions about it on an anime image board right now.

That's not a point in favor of capitalism lmao. Humanity never should have climbed down a tree and picked up a tool.

>>53274647

>even the best treated slaves in history still weren't in a particularly enviable position.

Yes they certainly were. Being a privileged, educated slave (likely working as an accountant, librarian, educator, etc) in a patrician Roman house was almost certainly better than being a plebeian in a squalid housing complex. Cicero had a slave he later freed and they were great friends until he died.

I'd say a shitty commoner was just as liable, if not more liable, to get subjected to some sort of unfair punishment than a well treated slave.

An average slave versus an average plebeian is obviously another thing entirely, but the best treated got by just fine.

>>53275891
Of course, it's easier to do this if they look discernibly different in culture of physiology.

>>53275855
>They were hardly treated like 'garbage,' and that's all just a popular myth about the city anyways.
It wasn't a popular myth, it was actually the truth as attested to by many scholars of the time. as for their treatment, it speaks for itself:
Helots were ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn the Spartans would declare war on the helots so they could be killed by a member of the Crypteia without fear of repercussion.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots

>>53275855
>the conditions of slave societies force people to become slaves
>therefore slavery is good

Seems like you missed a few steps there.

>>53275928
He didn't miss any steps, you added one.

>>53274899
>>53275060
And they're still wrong in regards to american slavery, since owning black slaves compared to white ones ("indentured servants") was insanely expensive. Rich people can't beat up their expensive slaves for kicks if they want to use them to flaunt their wealth. It'd be like driving around in a ferrari covered in bird poop. That's why whips were used in the first place; it minimized the amount of bruising and physical damage.

Let's all keep in mind that a slave costs about as much as a car.

>>53275958
What, so the oint is that slavery existed? Yes, slavery existed, and all apologia can do about it is try to squirm around to say bullshit like it's not as bad as we think that slaves could be beaten and killed, masters had to have a minor reason; or even if 99% of slaves lived awful lives, a few were well treated and that makes it all okay.

>>53275915
holy shit ubuntawuru, how did you manage to get the cables into your hut without burning the fucking thing down

>>53275408
>zeitgeist
What

>>53276025
in which time period?

>>53276028
>What, so the oint is that slavery existed?
The point is that not all slavery was Turbonigger Plantation Beatdown 3000 Turbo Edition Featuring Dante from the Devil May Cry series, but apparently your brain only has binary toggles so it can't understand anything between 'literally the worst' and 'literally the best'

>>53276078

All of them.

>>53276028
Everyone except for upper echelons of society lived awful lives, generally speaking.

>>53275923
> by many scholars of the time.
Athenian scholars who had a vested interest in portraying Sparta is absurdly evil. The reality is that the treatment of slaves in Sparta varied as widely as the treatment of people in any society. There were people who were highly valued and treated well just as there were fairly useless people who weren't treated particularly well. None of that is inherent to slavery, that's just how human societies work. If you don't have some valuable trait to distinguish you from the rest of the population, no one will give you the time of day. Acting like that's something monstrous is absurd, you're applying modern standards of behavior to societies in which those standards didn't exist.

>>53275729

"There are as many kinds of slavery as there are stars in the sky" - Mike Tyson

>>53275785

Yes, the vast majority of slaves were simple laborers. But you are unequivocally wrong if you claim they had no rights. Moreover, no matter how you try to misrepresent it, 100 years is an incredibly long time, and the Servile Wars are hardly representative of the entirety of Greco-Roman slave history.

>>53275833

As a matter of fact, yes, those labor regimes were quite rare in comparison to slavery for obvious reasons. They became far more common in the medieval era. Being a freeman laborer offered no benefits whatsoever in comparison to slavery - you did not get a roof over your head and your family's head, you did not get your food provided for you, and you did not earn much more than any slave would earn doing the same labor. If you were to be a freeman, you had to have a trade that could support you and your family entirely all on your own, like smithing. Many freemen were forced to sell themselves into slavery due to falling upon hard times and falling too deep into debt.

>Oh wait, that's not the case, and the point you make that violence is inherent to slavery and the power of slave owners is, in fact, only proving my point.

Sorry, should they have turned in their slaves to the law for disobeying them? Have them thrown into prison, where they would be... raped, beaten, and starved? Have an arm chopped off and exiled? Oh that's right, there was no modern law enforcement system in these societies. Just like there was no abundance of food. And disciplining a slave only rarely entered the realm of true, actual violence for all the reasons I've already pointed out.

>>53276089
Who argued that, dumbfuck? You're the one being the apologist, and the original reply here >>53275673 isn't saying "yes, slavery is awful, but etc etc apologia", it's trying to justify a slave society.

>>53276093
Well, that's simply untrue.
http://erenow.com/modern/atlanticslavetrade1440-1870/43.html

>>53276177

Examining it in context and discussing the reasons why it existed, and the advantages it provided, is 'justifying' it? So we should completely ignore history and just react based on our emotions and modern values rather than trying to understand?

>>53274927
If you fuck her until she mindbreaks then it's okay through.

>>53274623
you don't have to teach a hammer to like nails to do it's job and know its place

>>53275855
>and that's all just a popular myth about the city anyways

Why is it that slavery enthusiasts never have a solid grip on history, despite their claims of realism and rationalism? Sparta's practice of ritually torturing and slaughtering slaves is well-documented.

>>53276248

Can you cite your sources on that? If nothing else, that just seems ridiculously inefficient.

>>53276177

>Who argued that, dumbfuck?

The dumb nigger who posted >>53275928 certainly seemed to be arguing it, what with the whole >I'm gonna greentext a conclusion you didn't make into my summary of your post

>>53276211
Hey, fuckface, slavery existed, obviously the conditions for it existed. You can obviously analyze slavery while simultaneously condemning it, you don't need to start spouting apologia for it.

>>53274687

Only for certain slaveries.

Hell it's not slavery but I was reading about Louis the Sun King and the French of the 17th century and one point was how servants had both a worse time and a better time than servants of Victorian England. To quote:

>To those of us who can remember the glacial contact between employer and employed in too many English households of yesterday (Book is written 1953 so think Downtown Abbey or Downington Abbey or whatever it is for yesterday) it is difficult to visualize the situation of a domestic servant in 17th century France. Scolded, kicked, beaten, but with a liberty of speech which would not have been tolerated 200 years later, the domestic's was then a rougher but a more human life, in which it was never forgotten on either side that the servant was one of the family. To our ideas, startlingly so at times. There were fewer haughtier men in France than Duc de La Rochefoucauld but he thought nothing of sitting down to a game of chess with one of his footmen, and in more extraordinary still, his sister was married to one of the Rochefoucauld footmen, the celebrated Gourville; and the marriage, though never acknolwedged, was an open secret both in the family and society.
>St Simon, rather unexpectedly, speaks with approval of the Duchess D'orleans chambermaid, who was "familiar, like all good old servants" and did not mince her words in reproving the Duke himself when she thought he deserved it. Nor need we waste much indignation on the habit of beating servants, for it was a pleasure which was safer to discuss than to practice; The princess D'harcourt was much given to it until she engaged a new maid, a strong country girl unaccustomed to beatings, and not caring much for the novelty: without more ado the maid knocked eher mistress down and gave her such a thrashing as had not come her way since she left the schoolroom. And society was so amused that the princess did not dare to seek revenge.

>>53276301
So you don't see the whole trying to justify a slave society thing as trying to say that slavery is good, huh? Let's start out on the right foot then: say that slavery was an awful institution. Whether it was a "necessary" one is then an empirical question you can fuck around with. But, by the way, protip: it wasn't.

File: Tulunid and Fatimid black slaves.png (640KB, 936x1160px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 936x1160px

>>53276316

It goes on to describe the patrimonial kind of relationship to servants.

"Dont, he (academian author) imagine that by employing a multitude of servants you are showing charity, and don't make the excuse that you are helping to reduce unemployment. What you are doing is to save a number of idlers from the necessity of earning their bread usefully". More stuff about having to make sure your servants are good church-going folk, that "The God fearing master never forgets that he stands in the place of a father to his servants and prefers to beat, rather than to dismiss them".

That is servitude, not slavery, but it still points to the relationship of master and servant usually being more complex than sheer rapacious brutality. It mentions similar in the case of the rural countryside where the poorer noble (looked down upon by his peers hanging out at Versailles) are often more at home roughhousing with his footmen and peasants than among the hoity toity.

Generally Industrialized or commercial slavery (latifundum, Plantation, mines) is the most miserable existence imaginable. House slavery as a man is decent to cool, house slavery as a woman is decent in a pre-modern sense but terrible in a modern sense because you are at risk of being the master's sexual plaything. Being a high education slave or white/asiatic slave warrior is dope as fuck. Being a black slave warrior is nto so cool.

>>53276373
>pointing out to amerifat retards that historical slavery wasn't 100% niggers on plantations is saying that slavery is good

I don't know why that anon was even trying, you dipshits clearly can't be reached.

>>53276155
>Athenian scholars who had a vested interest in portraying Sparta is absurdly evil.
All the evidence agrees that they had the right idea, even if some of their depictions were hyperbolic.
The rest of your argument is pointless to respond to, so I won't even bother.

>>53276158
>Yes, the vast majority of slaves were simple laborers. But you are unequivocally wrong if you claim they had no rights.
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Roman slaves had no legal rights whatsoever during the Republic.
>Moreover, no matter how you try to misrepresent it, 100 years is an incredibly long time
It's actually an incredibly short period of time, especially within context of the thousand years Rome was around.
>and the Servile Wars are hardly representative of the entirety of Greco-Roman slave history.
Considering that the wars lead to the institution of a few rights for slaves, I would say they are the ultimate representation of how shittily the slaves were treated and the backlash from it.

>>53276315

Given how you seem to be overreacting and calling literally any comment on the contextual advantages of slavery as 'apologia', I'm not sure what more there is to say.

>>53275928

Oh no. People were not forced to become slaves, and freemen could absolutely stay free until their dying breath as they held the corpses of their wives and children in their arms, three skeletons with bloated bellies and flies dancing on their flesh.

Slavery was a step up from total poverty, which many freemen fell into due to misfortune or debt or both. To be a slave was to have a place in society, a protected place where if you did your job you would be taken care of, even if it was as another man's property. At the time, slavery served an important purpose as a safety net for the poor. There was no time to think about a better way and no room for idealism when survival was always item one on everyone's agenda.

The slavery of the colonial era on the other hand was a much more sinister, vile mechanism. Rather than being a safety net, men and women were being dragged into it from their homes in Africa. By other Africans, mostly, which made it even more disgusting. It was a time in which the civilized world had plenty and prospered more than ever before, and yet slavery was turned to as it became easier and cheaper than ever before. Contrary to the arguments made by the slaveowners of the time, it was absolutely not necessary at this time; indentured servitude was a concurrent institution that would have served much better in its place. The plantations of the US South and the Caribbean colonies were a failure of the morality of the time period in every possible way.

But it is foolish to equate that era of slavery with any prior time, because it is simply that irrevocably twisted and inhuman.

>>53276410
>I can't read: the post
Roman slavery was unjustified and awful, face it.

File: 1339913442533.jpg (6KB, 153x222px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 153x222px

>>53276430
>Oh no. People were not forced to become slaves
I don't even know how to respond to a statement this stupid.
Colonial America was not the only place and time in the world where slavery was involuntary, that's why slavery is a different term from servant in the first place.

>>53276430
>the conditions in which slave owners own the vast majority of land and therefore push people into slavery
>because they don't have land
>slave masters were totally providing an important safety net guys

EVERY TIME.

>>53274623
What are Mamelukes?
What are Janissaries?

Seriously OP, you're a fucking retard. Slaves weren't always treated the same. In many muslim cultures the elite warriors came from a specific slave caste. They were often bound to protect the sultan/state and were treated better than most freemen (with some exceptions): including formal education, food, housing, administrative benefits, unique privileges, etc. Mamlukes even had their own sultanate in Egypt (that is a member of the slave warrior caste became the Sultan).

>>53275076
From the perspective of the lord, the difference may be none. Which explains why people could own slaves without wondering "am I the bad guy?"

From the perspective of the guy at the bottom, the difference could be everythign or none, depending on the degree of actual freedom he had.

I'm gonna take all your shit with violence. But then I'm going to give you back 1/1000th of it on the condition that you become my slave. Aren't I swell?

>Any time slavery is discussed
>Spergs show up and shit fling instead of contributing

EVERY TIME.

>>53276274
Plutarch, Aristotle, Theopompus, Myron, etc.

If you want text where this stuff appears, the writing of George Grote, Ducat, and Cartledge are relatively accessible.

>>53276532
Yeah but the guy at the bottom isn't a real person. Just look at the modern society - are bums really "people" in the eyes of majority? They sure aren't treated like they are.

>>53276430
>Rather than being a safety net, men and women were being dragged into it from their homes

...Do you really think this didn't happen in Rome and Greece?

As much as I suspect that it wouldn't stop the retards from being retarded, I feel like this thread would really benefit if we started actually differentiating between which style of slavery we're talking about at any given time. Lumping it all under one term makes it far easier for people who don't care about arguing in good faith to turn around and grab traits from less savory slaveries and apply them to the one actually being discussed.

>>53274623
>So why do slaves, who are are capable of empathy, speech, and everything that make us human get treated worse than a mechanic's favorite wrench?

Actually slaves have been treated in massively different ways, depending on circumstances - From being the favorite tool, and granted great privileges at the sultan's court, to being considered a personal friend, or a loved member of a Roman or Greek family, to being expendable labor, destined to perish in mines or fields. Like most "free" laborers were in 19th and early 20th century, and many people making the clothes you wear and electronics you use are today.

In the cases where the treatment of slaves is inhuman, it is exactly because there is no essential difference between the owner and the slave, as there is, say, between a hunter and his dog, or a man and a tool, but there is an acute need to separate yourself emotionally, because otherwise the atrocity would be impossible, and your greed and comfort would not be as easily sated.

>>53276419

>Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Roman slaves had no legal rights whatsoever during the Republic.

No, they did have rights. Not many during the time of the Republic, sure, but they had some no matter how much you want to believe they didn't. I'm not talking specifically about the Republic, however, but the broader picture, which includes the Empire and of course Greece.

>It's actually an incredibly short period of time, especially within context of the thousand years Rome was around.

Haha, no. No historian would ever call a century a short period of time. Especially not within the span of a thousand years - and you've conveniently neglected to mention that this was in the very early centuries of Rome's prominence.

>Considering that the wars lead to the institution of a few rights for slaves, I would say they are the ultimate representation of how shittily the slaves were treated and the backlash from it.

It was also the last slave rebellion of significance in Rome, just before it became the Empire. There were roughly 700 years of Empire where slaves were treated very well on a relative scale.

>>53275855
>Capitalism is the reason we are currently in such a period of prosperity that I can waste my day arguing about historical slavery versus the exaggerated superstitions about it on an anime image board right now.

Actually that would be the mix of technological progress and anti-Capitalist Social Democracy that created the post-WW2 Western welfare state.

>>53274623
Because it's another intelligent life form that will rebel if you show any compassion or weakness. No one wants to be a Fucking slave lol

>>53276766
Just wait until net neutrality gets repealed, and there won't be a politically incorrect peruvian goat farming website to waste your whole day on.

>>53274623
Does anyone else think Arthas raped sylvanas before he killed her? I know I do.

>>53276155
>Athenian scholars who had a vested interest in portraying Sparta is absurdly evil.

Come on, if you had read any "Athenian scholars" (which is itself an absurd anachronism), you would know that they were all pro-Sparta and anti-democratic. You are just pulling words out of your ass to try to sound clever.

>>53274968
You are only speaking of slavery in the American south.

>>53276790
>Implying I'm a dumbfuck americuck.

>>53276834
Once America proves that consumers will bend over and take it, every other country in the world will follow suit.

>>53276465

Oh yes, you could absolutely choose not to become a slave if your kingdom was conquered as well. You'd just be executed. No biggie. FREEDOM! m i rite? The vast majority of slaves during the Roman Empire, for example, were not acquisitions from wars because the Roman Empire did very little conquering of new territories compared to the Republic.

>>53276506

The rich were no more 'pushing' people into slavery than the economic conditions of the time were. Should the poor have just rose up and killed all the rich people, and become the rich men instead? But what about the other three million poor people in the Empire?

>>53276587

Not to citizens.

>>53276662
It matters very little. Slavery, no matter the practice, was always humiliating and unwanted status in life. Apologists call it a safety net and describe people 'applying' for slavery with starry eyes, eager to get their new master and new home, when in reality nobody ever wanted to be in the position of a slave. People that sold themselves into slavery generally did so out of desperation, because society was structured to put them into that position, as without slaves a slave economy collapses.

Apologists also tend to overestimate how often the rights of slaves were actually respected, or underestimate the number of loopholes often built into them. Hebrew slaves, for example, had to be released after a set period, but this rarely happened as the tenets of slavery basically had a built-in manual for how to deny your slave their freedom when the time comes.

>>53276749
>No, they did have rights. Not many during the time of the Republic, sure, but they had some no matter how much you want to believe they didn't.
Feel free to post your source on this, then.
>and you've conveniently neglected to mention that this was in the very early centuries of Rome's prominence.
The Servile Wars were at the tail-end of the Republic, and the Republic was relevant for a very long time, so that's certainly not true.
>There were roughly 700 years of Empire where slaves were treated very well on a relative scale.
Even operating under that conclusion, you *conveniently* ignore the 500 years of the Republic where they were not treated well.

>>53276834
Remind me where most popular websites are hosted and owned? And what country physically controls much of the internet's infrastructure? Oh. That's right.

>>53276861

I feel like you're overreacting and exaggerating everything to try and make out like you're some crusader instead of just someone petulantly whining at people discussing it in all but the most utterly negative of terms. I don't see any of the justification or apologism you're so ridiculously upset about.

>>53276861
>Apologists call it a safety net and describe people 'applying' for slavery with starry eyes, eager to get their new master and new home,

I would be skeptical that anyone could be that stupid, but I've read enough light novels to know how prevalent that fantasy is.

>>53276938
Look in this very thread for people.calling slavery that very thing: a "safety net".

>>53276861
Let me provide a summary of how this thread went:

OP went:
>Why are slaves always beaten and treated worse than dogs or tools?
Then some people went:
>That wasn't always true
You:
>FUCKING APOLOGISTS

>>53276973

But in broad societal terms, that's true.

In those contexts, it functioned as a method to keep people who'd fallen on hard times from total ruin. They had an option that allowed them to remain fed and sheltered, a personal benefit, and kept them of benefit to society.

Does that mean it was a good thing? No. Is it a justification or endorsement of it? No. It is a factual description of a role it fulfilled within that specific context.

>>53276974
That was literally my first post in this thread on the subject of historical slavery.

There are multiple people in here. You know that, right?

>>53276854
Try pulling your head out of your ass sometime.

The only ones who still care what the US does are the white trash hordes, who still think you matter, as the last of your jobs disappear to China and increaed mechanization, while you think Trump will save you from the Muslims and the Mexicans.

You cannot bend over harder, and all anyone else is doing is being busy laughing their asses off.

>>53276974
Actually, if you look at the thread, the first poster is states that slavery is varied but almost never something people enjoyed.

Then people came in to tell everyone off for not believing that slavery is a safety net.

>>53276858
>Oh yes, you could absolutely choose not to become a slave if your kingdom was conquered as well. You'd just be executed. No biggie. FREEDOM! m i rite?
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell if you're actually defending the forcible enslavement of people because they had the choice to let themselves be killed instead.
>The vast majority of slaves during the Roman Empire, for example, were not acquisitions from wars because the Roman Empire did very little conquering of new territories compared to the Republic.
Slaves were more expensive during the Empire due to the lack of conquest, but that does not at all imply they were voluntarily made slaves.

>>53274957
She might be goading you to impregnate her. This would be used in a judicial plead to grant her freedom for slave wombs aren't proper for good citizens.

>>53277013
I can't wait till transhuman 1% enslaves and eradicates all the plebs in 50 or so years.

>>53277006
A more accurate description would be this: slave societies organized the control of property in such a way that, when people fell into ruin (often because the slave owners owned the vast majority of property and political power), their only choice was slavery.

>>53276973
You make it sound like a "safety net" is something desirable to use and not the absolute last resort before death.

Do you honestly think there weren't people who sold themselves or their family members into slavery? And do you honestly think that anybody in this thread believes that people were happy with being slaves?

File: talklikeafag.jpg (96KB, 362x263px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 362x263px

>>53274623
In reality, they didn't.

Almost everything you've ever learned about how terribly slaves were treated is quite literally propaganda. Not like it's bad propaganda--slavery is pretty fucking horrible. But the reality was a lot nicer than people would have you believe.

Travesties did happen, though. As to your misinterpretation, however, people still abuse and mistreat their dogs, and trademen frequently overuse, damage, and/or "abuse" their tools. It's actually incredibly common.

So, basically, you're stupid and don't know shit about dick.

>>53277050

That doesn't actually counter the point though. It adds context and makes an argument as to the systemic properties of it, but that's the kind of thing that's actually interesting to discuss rather than people freaking out and trying to shut it all down.

>>53277029
>Then people came in to tell everyone off for not believing that slavery is a safety net.
The ones who started telling people off were the faggots screaming about apologists and justifications for even daring to suggest that slavery came in different presentations in history.

>>53277051
>And do you honestly think that anybody in this thread believes that people were happy with being slaves?
yeah
>>53275673
>but there were large numbers of well-to-do slaves who certainly had the funds to buy their own freedom (like the Greek scholar slaves who taught Roman nobility) yet never did.

>>53277070
Except nobody has said that all slavery was exactly the same. Nobody.

The only thing they've said was that it was never a good position to be in. People did not want to be slaves, they did not enjoy being slaves, and the portrayal of slavery as something positive and 'not really all so bad' is completely erroneous.

File: d_UoTOttrOpmhMrU_NeWwb-An9cvPQI4tnL0nM07RXtei2NfHbMBchLcW08AhyQMSPw2ZWnmRBCPKcd8kJlz-5PufJqag0rEVze4p9MfvKl6Iz51QoNAfraItgrneEM_ow[1].jpg (83KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x378px

>>53274623
Gross misconception.
Different places treated different types of slaves differently; there's no universal "this was how slaves were treated at X time," but factually. Slaves did the work their owners didn't want to do, in return they were fed, clothed, housed; sometimes even educated. On average, and on the records, they were treated much better than what The History Channel would have you believe.

>>53277050
>often because the slave owners owned the vast majority of property and political power
You have to understand that in ancient societies, owning household slaves wasn't something that was restricted to the rich and powerful.

Owning a slave to do your chores was a quality of life thing in societies like Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome or Greece. Much like a middle class person today owns a car to make their life easier, a middle class family in those times would own one or more slaves to take care of laundry, shopping, cooking, taking care of children and the like.

>>53277006

That's not actually how slavery has worked in 90% of the cases. Slaves in most places and periods, are typically captured in raids or in wars, and are forced and sold under threat of death. Slavery has never been a fucking "safety net", it is a source of labor in preindustrial societies.

Even in the cases I suppose you refer to, where slavery involves people from the same society, if a person defaults or commits a crime, and has no-one to turn to for help, they will be enslaved through law, and threat of force, not as some act of good-will.

>>53276790
>net neutrality

Implying packets from remote surgery should get the same priority as online sex porn.

>>53277087
So are you arguing that there was not in fact some percentage of slaves that managed to win the proverbial slave lottery and land in a not shitty situation?

>>53277087

That doesn't necessarily mean 'happy' though.

Even if they had the funds to buy their freedom but did not, there's a multitude of reasons why that might be the case. Simple familiarity, job security, a lack of options outside of it...

>>53277133

But it is how it worked in some specific contexts and cultures. And since those were the ones being commented and discussed, your point is irrelevant.

>>53277137
>Implying it's about that
>Not about throttling internet connections and charging more

>>53277049
So you know as much about the future as about the present and the past. Surprise, surprise.

>But m-m-muh fantasies!

>>53277137
>implying that has anything to do with what net neutrality even is

>>53276506
Best post of the thread.

>>53277066
It turns it from something positive e.g. "by god, if there wasn't slavery around, all those poor destitutes would be given in to starvation" into it's proper social context: that slave society creates the conditions of slavery, and thus any apologia for certain slave societies because how relatively well-treated some slaves were in relation to other slaves in that society or to other kinds of slavery must take into account that even those slaves need not have been.

>>53277110
And nobody is saying that slavery is an enviable position.

What people are saying is that slavery often times was not THE WORST position to be in. Sometimes, for some people, it was better to be a slave than the alternative.

>portrayal of slavery as something positive and 'not really all so bad' is completely erroneous.
These two are not equivalent. "Not really all so bad" means that it wasn't always as bad as the plantations of the Caribbean or the American south.

>>53277140
no
just answering that anon's question
>>53277145
>That doesn't necessarily mean 'happy' though.
well i believe the poster certainly meant to imply a certain level of satisfaction with their position but i guess you could ask him

>>53277185

I fail to see how it was being portrayed positively in the first place.

>>53277145
Were lower class people ever "happy" at any point in history, though? A freeman peasant who spends 14 hours a day toiling, barely has enough food to survive and doesn't know how to read isn't having a great time regardless of circumstances.

>>53277166

It's about the FTC seizing control of the Internet (ie: giving more power to the government)

>>53277159
If it ever did, as you suggest, provide some concrete examples. Because you can't.

>>53277204

Federal control and regulation is the only thing keeping the internet free.

>>53277197
>Were lower class people ever "happy" at any point in history, though?
yes
the meme that medieval peasants 100% hated their lives all the time is just that, a meme
it has no basis in reality

>>53277204
Atleast this guy gets it

>>53277217

Enjoy surgery-bot lag

>>53277229
'it' in this case being a tiny paycheck from the company he's shilling for

>>53277197
But he is marginally happier because he's not a slave. Why do you think white trash hate niggers? Because they are the same. Slaves to their Southern gentry masters.

>>53277232
freedom ain't free

>>53275585
Not him, but there's something interesting about spartan slaves. They were treated like shit yes, but spartans themselves were treated like somewhat better shit by their peers. Their system was too hard and rigid, so much that it broke instead of bending.

>>53277243
So you really think that a Russian Empire peasant is happier than a Hittite house slave simply because he is not a slave?

>>53277232
>implying giving priority to emergency lines means getting rid of net neutrality in its entirety
We get along just fine with phone lines operating under those rules, why not the internet?

>net neutrality is the evils

Boi if you think comcast is shitty now, wait until they are allowed to actively and willfully make your connection worse because you aren't paying for their premium anime streaming package.

And also selling advertisers a list of all the animes you watch.

>>53277224
Disregarding the fact that that guy wasn't talking about European medieval peasants, just because they weren't in abject misery 24/7 doesn't mean that their life was all sunshine and lollipops. How do you think they felt during times of famine or war? Or when their lord raised taxes to finance his expensive habits?

Peasant revolts were about as common as slave revolts.

>>53277145
Generally speaking, the reason slaves didn't buy their freedom was that they had been completely institutionalized by that point.

Someone above posted a link to a story about an American immigrant family that owned and hid a slave from their home country. I don't recall all the names and such but it's a good example of what happens to slaves after long periods of captivity - they forget how to be free, and even actively resist freedom when it comes knocking. Even when they know doing so will make them more miserable in the long run.

Slavery is a psychologically damaging position to be in.

>>53277316
And that's why feudalism ended. Funny how that happens.

>>53277240
Nah I'm thinking long game, gut net neutrality, let companies be companies for a year or so, come out with cheaper government alternative that's still decent, begin driving other businesses into the ground.

Final phase government internet is the only internet, then again I don't trust a fucking thing the federal government does now because they've proven to not have the people's best interest at heart time and time again.

>>53277263
Have you honestly never read Tolstoy?

The Russian serfs were ecstatic when they were freed, until they discovered they had just become wage slaves instead, then they were ecstatic to be freed by the Communists, until they discovered they were all just slaves to the Party. And finally they were ecstatic to be freed from Communism, until they discovered they were just slaves to the new oligarchs.

Irony aside, though, my comment refers to slave societies, a free poor person in a society with slavery, will always be happy to be free, because freedom is a good in all societies were slavery exists. Happiness is dependent on relative status.

>>53277351
>they've proven to not have the people's best interest at heart time and time again.
And yet people keep voting republican

>>53277335
Actually that had nothing to do with peasants, it was all about cities and the middle class. Who shits on peasants much harder than the aristocracy ever did.

>>53277406
>English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution
>German Peasants War
>nothing to do with the end of feudalism

>>53274623
Slaves were treated good. Stop believing Hollywood propaganda.

Better a slave than a homeless. And a lot of slaves that served as guardians or butlers were better treated and lived a shitton better than some white cucks.

Liberation was a mistake, much like women suffrage.

>there's no one saying anything positive about slavery
>no one is apologizing for slavery

>>53274863
>My ex's ex
cuck

>>53277361
>a free poor person in a society with slavery, will always be happy to be free
See, I don't agree with you here. Freedom alone isn't enough to bring happiness.

Sure, a slave working the copper mines or building roads is probably going to be happier as a poor farmer paying taxes by building Pyramids, but I'm not sure a middle-class house slave is going to be much happier working on a farm languishing in poverty.

Look, I'm not going to say that slavery is good or anything like that, that's obviously not true, but I'm also not going to say that just the simple fact of being a slave is the absolute worst thing that can happen to someone. What kind of slave you are matters. Also, understand that values change with time, some people value a full belly more than they value freedom.

Also, on your point about Russia. which isn't related to the discussion, but I feel like commenting anyway. I'm a Russian expat, my great-grandparents were peasants (some of them) and my grandparents and parents grew up during Communism and I still have family there. Let me tell you, everybody I know considers each transition to be an improvement. Sure, the communists were bad, but what came before was worse. And sure, Putin and his croneys are terrible, but nobody who grew up during Communism (outside of those who had power during those times) wants to go back to that. But even then, nobody says that the past was 100% all bad, some parts are remembered fondly.

>>53277546
I doubt that the slavery in most fantasy games is going to resemble that of black Americans

You can't treat them so badly to the point that they start believing death is preferable to living, you will only get a useless corpse this way.

>>53277578
I'm not sure you understand how this meme works.

>>53277643
That's true, but luckily in fantasy it doesn't resemble the Spanish slavery of native americans. Because that was fucked up.

Also I really liked some posts of people above, claiming class societies is what breed slavery regardless of its name. Namedropping that a necromancer also beats his zombies around when they fail him. A necromancer trying to turn everyone into a zombie so society becomes equal sounds like an entertaining antagonist to me.

this was a good thread, time to write a module.

>>53277643
It will, because that's all most people know about when it comes to slavery. All the complexity and variety of slavery throughout history gets completely ignored in favor of a simplistic "slavery BAD" message rooted in the way one specific instance of slavery was portrayed in American abolitionist propaganda.

>>53277727

Being fair, slavery was always bad. It's just that in some contexts it wasn't as bad, and wasn't always entirely negative, even if on the whole the concept is still fucking awful.

>>53277643
>>53277727
If anything, fantasy slavery should look more like Spartacus.

>>53277750
There's Dark Sun for that.

>>53277746
So it's kind of like monarchism/ feudalism in most fantasy settings.

I find it funny that everyone who says that slavery wasn't always bad everywhere only ever points to those few slaves whose masters granted them privileges, disregarding the vast majority of slaves who were cheap and ultimately expendable labor.

Even American slavery, the brutality of which is well documented, had its Phillis Wheatleys. It's just that everyone else was that nameless slave you don't know about specifically because they died after being worked and beaten for decades.

>>53277746
> even if on the whole the concept is still fucking awful.
The concept is no better or worse than human society is generally. Sure, some slaves were mistreated, but then so were plenty of free people. Freedom was no guarantee of a decent life, nor was slavery a guarantee that you would be abused. In fact, slavery put a limit on how much you were likely to be abused, since masters had a financial interest in keeping their slaves in good condition.

>>53277746
>Being fair, slavery was always bad.
No. Don't mix your subjective opinion into an argument.

>>53277824
Just like capitalism!

I love that theres the political insanity side of this thread.
And then theres the lowkey elf rape going on.

Never change /tg/

>>53277825
No, they had a financial interest in extracting as much labor in as little time as possible, because they paid for a slave, and their time, in full; and therefore any downtime was in a literal sense lost money.

>>53277848
Starting to connect some dots I see. Keep it going.

>>53274623

>>53277113
>this

I mean if you want to pick a time and a place, I'm happy to start making wild predictions

>>53277878
??? that makes no sense.

If I buy a slave to give me food, and the next day he dies. I have to buy another slave, which means I have to travel, get a new one, and come back. Which is time where labor is not being done.

Instead, if I treat my slave well, I pay for 1 slave, and get labor for multiple days, and I don't have to waste money on a second one.

If you want to go into the jew argument. It's objectively better to amass wealth by not fucking wasting money.

>>53277878
>they paid for a slave, and their time, in full

Unless you got some sort of business contract slaves where they're only yours for x amount of hours, all you're doing is working perfectly good slaves to death, forcing you to go buy more sooner than you otherwise would need to.

I bet you're the kind of bad at money poor person who buys a cheap car and then rides it till it dies, rather than investing a bit into it to keep it going.

>>53274623
Depends on their economic utility, just like everything else.
Take the Old South vs. New South myth. Slaves in the Old South were treated better, beaten less and fed better. Why?

The myth is that they were kinder, and they certainly told themselves that, but in truth it was purely economic. The Old South had lost direct economic utility for their slaves with the fall of the tobacco trade. They gained marginal use from them working estates, but their primary value was in using them as breeding cattle and selling their progeny to the New South.

New Southerners treated their slaves worse because their primary value was found in working cotton fields, which requires greater discipline and doesn't present benefits for treating them well.

TLDR: Economic Conditions trump human morality or cultures.

>>53274623
Interestingly, slaves in ancient Rome generally lived better than plebeians (much as a noble's dog also would). They lived in their masters' luxurious estates, ate better food, were guaranteed that shelter and food and security from danger as long as they worked, and their jobs were usually easy and only superficially degrading. Meanwhile a pleb would do backbreaking manual labor or prostitute themselves pretty much from the cradle to the grave, eat food that was a step up from dirt, pay the patricians taxes, might lose their shelter or access to food despite working all the time and even then worked to live in relative squalor.

I think the idea of abused slaves comes from enslavement, that is, someone not being born into or willingly entering easy slavery but being captured and stripped of their dignity and forced into hard slavery (ie intense manual labour), usually someone who is at least implied to have hitherto been more than a plebeian in his own society. A lot of it probably also has to do with Colonial plantation owners. Slaves, especially black slaves, in America were not kept to tend the estates and prepare the food and care for nobility, they were kept by the upper-middle class to do the backbreaking manual labor plebs normally would for free (or rather, a one-time purchase plus the minor upkeep of an extremely basic diet, as opposed to proper employment meant to pay for a real house, two real meals a day and clothing) and were treated like shit because they were plentiful, expendable, bred like livestock and seen as ugly and reprehensible (at least publically- There's a reason many if not most American blacks now are coffee-with-milk mulattos and not dark-chocolate negros). Plus it's not like there was any risk of them running anywhere, since everywhere they could reach without a ship would hold a fundamentally worse life than in the Americas, and they had no real means of going back home- assuming they weren't second generation or later.

>>53277939
>Unless you got some sort of business contract slaves where they're only yours for x amount of hours
Sounds like Walmart workers.

Which makes a kind of sense. Why pay for slaves who you then have to house and feed and care for when you can just hire people for minimum wage and not worry about them at all aside from the work they do.

>>53277986
>aside from the work they do.
And when they die/leave, you can just hire another one for the same minimum wage. Making an endless cycle of suffering and poor families.

Democracy was a mistake.

>>53277976
>than in the americas
meant "in the americas than in the states" but kinda jumbled the two phrases together

>>53278019
Could have just worded it "in the states", there are no other states out there than the united ones.

>>53278051
i mean the greek city states kept slaves

>>53277976
Not all slaves in ancient Rome were house slaves. A lot of them did manual labor for the government or for rich landowners, and those were probably the worst off in all of Roman society. There were also the gladiators, who were a mixed bag, some were well off, some were just fodder. Then there were slaves to brothels and the like. Of course, all those were criminals or war prisoners in their majority.

Also it's important to remember that not only patricians owned house slaves, but everyone who could afford one, which means everyone middle-class and up.

>>53277938
>>53277939
It's a mere matter of calculation regarding whether that x amount of money you put down for the initial purchase plus y additional amounts for every n days you have to maintain that slave turns a better profit from, indeed, riding them to death in five years or making it last ten or twenty with a somewhat less severe exploitation regime in place. A calculation that says you gain more money faster in a shorter amount of time by killing your slaves to, say, reinvest that money in more capital (read: more land and therefore more slaves to work it) for a greater rate and mass of productivity means the economic incentive is to work your slaves to death. But even if it lasts for that ten to twenty years, if a slave master gave their slaves any more downtime than was necessary for recovery, then that was lost time that the master had already paid for and therefore lost money.

If you look at oral reports from former slaves in, say, the American south, they will far and wide report largely the same thing: they rose early, were worked hard, were hounded and beaten to increase their rate of work, and worked year-round (even if there was no agricultural work, they were leased for wage labor or did the repair work in preparation for the next season). That's where the economic incentive gets you.

Think about it like a factory boss, in which slaves are here factory machinery (the inhumanity of the analogy I find to be morbidly appropriate). You could have that one loyal little machine chugging along loyally for ten or twenty years. Or you could run it full steam in five so that you can buy two more machines, then run those for five more years so that in five more years you can get four, so on and so on, in each stage increasing the rate and mass of productivity.

File: real_socialism.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>tfw just realized capitalism is exactly like slavery through a 4chan thread

wtf I love communism now!

>>53278821
As systems, the main difference is that capitalism keeps working with some wrenches thrown in.
With any communism knock-offs you only need one asshole to send everything to shitfuck, syberia.

File: certaindeath.jpg (196KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 500x500px

>>53278821
There's no escape from suffering and toil. Death is certain.

>>53278893

Even then, global capitalism is starting to creak.

It really does annoy me. The idea of money moving, stimulating the economy and growing the markets for the good of everyone is a fantastic, elegant and beautiful concept... Which has been completely undermined by the constant and ludicrous accumulation of wealth in the upper percentile of society.

Because money accumulating like that isn't moving. It's stagnant, only serving to make everyone else's money less valuable by its existence, essentially doubling the damage done to global markets.

Of course if the possessors of said wealth were true capitalists, they'd be fuelling more wealth creation, but these days it seems to more get splurged on ridiculous vanity projects, like enormous yachts or buying elections.

>>53278195
> If you look at oral reports from former slaves
Those are hardly reliable. They have a huge incentive to portray their treatment as worse than it actually was in an attempt to elicit sympathy and provide fodder for their constant demands for reparations.

>>53278947
So...
Mercantilism, but less shiny?

>>53278964
Jesus Christ. So this was doctored Union propaganda, huh?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_(slave)

>>53279025
not him but yes, you should never believe oral or anecdotal evidence as fact.

even I portrait my past deeds greater than they were, and my past offenses worse than they were to gain sympathy.

Anecdotal evidences are literally worthless, oral testimony can be faked, bribed, forced, or straight up lie. Just because a woman claims there is a ghost in her house, doesn't make it true.

>>53274647
>The actual treatment of slaves varied massively from culture to culture, in some better, in some worse.
This.


>>53274623
>So why do slaves get treated worse than a mechanic's favorite wrench?
Because their masters are cruel assholes.

>>53279025
It certainly was abolitionist propaganda. Your own link says as much

> Abolitionists distributed these carte de visite photographs of Gordon throughout the United States

>>53279073
This despite wide testimony from former slaves from all across the south attesting to mistreatment from their former masters? Even though third parties, non-abolitionist and abolitionist alike, could corroborate that testimony?

The violence done to black slaves is as uncontroversial fact as that of the Holocaust.

>>53279156
The key word is "doctored". Somehow I doubt they had Photoshop.

>>53279199
>The violence done to black slaves is as uncontroversial fact as that of the Holocaust.
So its fake shit? What are you saying?

Wait, wait. Where are all those fucknuts trying to say that there were no slavery apologists in here?

>>53279199
>Somehow I doubt they had Photoshop.
It was easy to fake photographs when you had physical photo rolls, anon. Just take a loot at all the "holocaust" photos.

Photo editing has been done since the 1800s.

>>53279199
>The violence done to black slaves is as uncontroversial fact as that of the Holocaust.
Welp, this thread is done.

>>53274687
Slaves are usually, to my knowledge, expensive as fuck. If you let your slave die too easily, you're basically throwing away your money.

>>53274623
Inanimate object can't talk back, and if it breaks it's either your fault or a fault with the product.

Dogs have the intelligence of a toddler in their best moments. They're dumb animals that worship you because you give them food.

Something that is capable of being on par with you (the master) is useful but dangerous because of that. Yes you can have them do more complicated tasks, but they run the risk of betrayal and etc. The phrase "playing with fire" comes to mind. Fire is useful but it will burn you if you aren't cautious.

And if you wanted to treat another life kindly and carefully with respect you're more likely to just hire someone to do the job and pay reasonable wages. Slavery is for jobs no one wants to do, or because you want to make someone do with job with bare minimum costs and with appalling working conditions.

>>53279335
It depends on the time frame and location.

If food is sparse and expensive owning a human being you have to pay enough to keep in health working condition isn't cheap.

If it's some North Korean work camp where you don't really care if they die so long as you get some work out of them it's not that big of a deal. There will be more to take the dead persons place. But those people are taken by force and not purchased.

I think healthy kids were generally more expensive because they were young enough to "train" and if you treated the kid well he'd likely be loyal to you.

>>53279335
Labor slaves during the period where slavery was legal in the Americas were pretty cheap. These days slaves are also pretty cheap.

House slaves in ancient society were about the price of a new car. Not cheap, but also not outside the realm of the middle class.

Really nice slaves were luxury goods.

For example, from a letter of Amenhotep III to a Canaanite prince:

>Behold, I have sent you Hanya, the commissioner of the archers, with merchandise in order to have beautiful concubines, i.e. weavers; silver, gold, garments, turquoises, all sorts of precious stones, chairs of ebony, as well as all good things, worth 160 deben. In total: forty concubines - the price of every concubine is forty of silver. Therefore, send very beautiful concubines without blemish.

That's 40 kit of silver for a really nice slave girl fit for a Pharaoh. I extrapolated a bit from the wages during the time and I got that the modern day equivalent, in cars, would roughly be a new, mid-range Porsche.

Male slaves were a lot cheaper.

>>53274623
There is a lot of psychology involved in that question, but distilled down to its simplest terms, humans enjoy seeing others suffer.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200901/why-are-we-pleased-others-misfortune

http://www.livescience.com/17398-schadenfreude-affirmation.html

I actually used to have a link to a psychology paper written by a PhD that went indepth on this subject. If I can find it I'll post it.

>>53279548
I think some people also purchased highly educated slaves and used them as teachers for their children, house butlers, and etc. Ones with good skill sets were likely not cheap.

>>53274623
I'm pretty sure the slave trope in media exaggerates how badly they were treated pretty grossly.

It's kind of your typical "look how silly other cultures are" group identity, in group vs. out group dealio. Just with a historical angle.

>>53279597
As someone is seemingly unable to feel envy, I feel like maybe you need it pointed out to you that it's actually not a surprise that SOME people enjoy other people's suffering, and hate other people's joy, wealth, or achievement.

So what did you think you found in those results?
Validation, perhaps?

>>53274758
Are you actually arguing slavery is ok? These people were property. Treated well or not they belonged to another person. That's fucked up. What about them makes it OK for them to not have control of their own destiny?

>>53274885
At the end of the day if Alfred wanted he could leave and work somewhere else if he chose. It's the choice to stay and put up with all of Bruce's shit that makes him awesome

>>53280129
>That's fucked up.
No, it's not. The dude living under the bridge wishes to have that privilege.

No one cares about destiny, the fuck is that shit? Something more important than destiny and freedom, is food and shelter.

>>53275585
Spartans were required by law to beat their slaves. Not allowed by law, but required.
>b-but slavery wasn't so bad the south will rise again

>>53275656
But those were points made in the post he replied to

>>53275673
The idea that you're talking about the state allowing a human being to beat another human being for not following orders that the second human being has no say in, and acting like that was an OK system, shows you're a piece of shit

>>53280335
>the state allowing a human being to beat another human being for not following orders that the second human being has no say in
I'm not sure if you're talking about children, women or slaves.

>>53280212
You're literally retarded. Like I can't even argue with you, because it'd be like talking to a brick wall.

>>53280350
What world do you live in where it's legal to beat women and children?

>>53280212
Are you really saying you'd give up your freedom of choice for food and shelter and whoever owns you being allowed to fucking beat you if you messed up washing his window?

>>53280455
Just until 30 years ago it was pretty kosher to beat your child for misbehaving in the US, man.

In almost every ancient culture, beating your children was an expected part of their education. Some ancient cultures were okay with you beating your women, too.

Point is, in every culture, in every time in history and in every society, you can find a situation that fits the vague description of "the state allowing a human being to beat another human being for not following orders that the second human being has no say in." Army, police, family, prison, whatever.

>>53280476
Spoken like somebody who has never been hungry or without shelter a day in their lives.

>>53280544
I know people who have been homeless numerous times in their lives, and still only buys things that could be pawned or sold if shit goes south. He thinks that slavery is the foulest thing that exists. He's gone on tirades about it before. So I guess you're just soft

I used to think /b/ was the most fucked up board. Until I came here. I've never seen more people write multi paragraph posts trying to justify genocide and slavery. Most of you guys are chill though

>>53280586
No, you're just ignorant.

This isn't some hypothetical scenario made up for the sake of argument. It's something that has actually happened. Selling yourself into slavery was a thing in the past.

>>53280476
Have you ever felt Starvation? I have. You speak like a priviledged dude that has always taken his life for granted.

>>53280439
wew lad 1 post was enough to trigger you this hard?

>>53280611
Man, this thread was already dead. Why'd you have to revive it with your shit-tier bait?

>>53279548
>ancient society
>middle class

>>53280476
Some homeless people deliberately commit crimes to go to prison because they'll receive shelter, food and some semblance of medical care.

Freedom of choice ain't shit when you're free to die on the street.

>>53280678
Like it or not, ancient societies did have an equivalent of the middle class. It wasn't all nobles and peasants.

>>53280620
Sure, you're so tough because through no fault of your own I'm sure you were hungry for awhile. I don't respect you for that and neither does anyone else. You have quit in you. You are willing to give up on your whole life because you couldnt get it together enough to feed yourself. Theres whole history books of people who were willing to die fighting rather than be put into slavery. But you'd give up your life to an owner. A fucking owner, because you couldn't find a lake and catch some fishnet or go to the library and do some research on the free computers on edible plants. Or hell even trying to wash people's windows at stoplights for money. Noone in a first world country should ever starve unless they have a mental disorder or some other insurmountable obstacle that prevents them from the basic survival that humans have used for milennia

>>53280476
Some homeless people deliberately break the law to be sent to prison because that'd mean having shelter, food and some semblance of medical care.

When all you're free to do is die in the gutter, freedom of choice isn't much.

>>53280718
>first world country
And what does that have to do with anything, mate? Are you saying that Ancient Greece or Egypt had the same opportunities that a first world country does? You're just being willfully ignorant of the past and trying to apply your modern day sensibilities and morals to people from other times.

>>53280770
Look up subsistence farming

>>53280793
You look it up, ignoramus.

>>53280718
>because through no fault of your own I'm sure
It wasn't, as I was a child.

>computers
When I was a child, computers were a NASA myth.

A first world country? I live in South America. Hola, gringo. Sabes cuantos países hay debajo de Panamá?

Once again, you have proven you are a privideldge dude that has taken his life for granted. You don't know what's its like to starve. You can't accept the fact people will do anything to survive, prostitution(which is a form of slavery), cannibalism, or even sell themselves to slavery.

You are either too young or just completely ignorant, like another poster said.

By the way, the neariest public library is 4 hours on car. It seems you think everywhere in the world you can have access to education, you don't.

>>53280696
I don't like your tone burgher.

>>53280824
It's where you farm enough to feed yourself and your family

>>53275446
If I turn myself into a Lich I have technically killed myself and am still able to abuse others for lulz.

>>53278051
>australian states

>>53280476
Oh yeah, I'm sure you'd rather go through the experience of withering and dying in drawn out misery than be powerless and maybe get a booboo under less-than-fair circumstances,
you precious precious summer child.
I just wanna pinch your fat little cheeks.

>>53280968
>maybe get a booboo under less-than-fair circumstances
This is what slavery apologists actually believe. My offer for you to become my slave still stands.

>>53280831
So is southe Africa a barren wasteland? Is there really nothing available for natural food? Nowhere to fish? Nowhere to hunt rabbit or other small mammals? No fruit bearing plants? Nothing? No options? Just sit there and be hungry huh? If that's true I'll tell you what. Next time you're having trouble I'll put you up for free. All you have to do is any chores or labor I tell you to. Plus, if you fuck it up or I'm in a bad mood, I'm gonna hit you with a walking stick. Still think it's worth it? I'm sure you dislike me heavily right now if not hate me. You surely have no respect for me. How would it be to belong to me? It'd sucks because it's a terrible thing. You attacling me and not my arguement says to me that you don't really have one

>>53280968
>Implying being homeless means you have to starve
Looks like someone sucks at survival

>>53281049
There are probably more animals in a quarter of south Africa than in the entirety of South America. Unless you think you can hunt mountain lions, and not mountain lions hunting you. We do have rabbits but you have to move to a mountain, were lions are.

>Just sit there and be hungry huh?
Yes, I was meant to study and take care of my siblings while mom tried to find a job. Tourists gave us money, those were the best days. But we had to wait for mom to come for us or else she would beat us.
>All you have to do is any chores or labor I tell you to. Plus, if you fuck it up or I'm in a bad mood, I'm gonna hit you with a walking stick. Still think it's worth it?
It doesn't sound bad at all. Do you have any idea how much pain starvation causes? My mom used to beat me up with a stick when I didn't do well, it is nothing compared to hunger.

> I'm sure you dislike me heavily right now if not hate me.
No, I kinda feel pity that someone with access to so much education, is this ignorant to the world he lives in.

I got lucky when I became a teenager and managed to hold my own job as a car guard.

>>53280620
>>53280718
>>53280831
>>53281049
>3rd world anon talks about his hard life
>1st world sheltered cuck berates him and forces his coddled ideals
People like you should be used for fuel.

>>53281249
Where the fuck were you man, Argentina?

>>53281250
It's alright, I met a lot of people like him in the hotel were I used to work. I don't mind. I will always be grateful for first worlders that built the hotel I worked for, as when you live in a Miner town, there aren't many places to work to begin with. I think that hotel saved my family.

>>53281250
Some people have it rough and rise above. This guy had it rough and talks about how he'll give up his life. We can't all be the bad mother fuckers like Louis zapperini that spend years being tortured and starved in p.o.w. camps and still keep there humanity I guess. Y'all can think I'm weak if you wantneed but I know what I'm about. Also it's kinda funny that in a thread about slavery the guy arguing against it is somehow bad.

>>53281321
Eastern Peru. I still live there on the weekends.

>>53275910
Makes me think of Samuel L. Jackson's character in Django

>>53274863
>strangling dogs
you know, it's people like that that make me think that Hitler had a few good ideas

>>53281249
Congrats you rose above. You didn't stay in your poor situation. So you're mom was the slave owner. she didn't allow you to feed yourself and beat you if you did bad? It sounds like as soon as you had some personal choice you took care of yourself and you're doing better. Let me ask youn if as a kidney you'd had your choices would you have done what your mom wanted you too? Or would you have sought out more tourists and gotten food to feed yourself?

>>53281393
Southern Chilean here.
Glad you got your shit together, but stop with the animal stuff. There is plenty of jungle here and hares are easy catch..

>>53281250
Not that other person, but having a hard life hardly excuses slavery apologia. Was slavery a step away from abject suffering? Yeah, okay. Was it the slave society itself that made it so the possibility of abject suffering pushes people into slavery, if not actively pressing those people into slavery in the first place? Yes.

You don't thank the person who beats you to within an inch of losing your life but leaves you the inch--so long as you work for him.

>>53281335
>small miner town in south america
Jesus Christ. Where do you live now?
>>53281370
>muh animu willpower will get me through anything
Kill yourself you fucking shitstain. I can't begin to imagine what he went through but i at least have the decency to keep my fucking mouth shut. Privileged little shit, walk a mile in his shoes, then speak. He's talking from the perspective of a small, starving child in a third world shithole and you tell him to fucking man up?
>Some people have it rough and rise above.
Yea? And a lot of people die in indescribable despair and misery.
>the guy arguing against it is somehow bad
The guy telling starving children they should die if they can't feed themselves, yes.

>>53281467
I'm not defending slavery. This autist took a holier-then-thou attitude against somebody who spoke from experience that there are scenarios in which people would willingly choose slavery.

>>53281498
Maybe he should argue for something less retarded than the benefits of slavery, like ways of ending poverty.

>>53281498
You can sit there and say that you'd give up but I'm not gonna do it. I'm glad he got out of that situation. I just don't cotton with a human being having that kind of give up in them. You calling it animu willpower shows you have quit in you too.

>>53281409
And what good ideas would those be, fuckwit?

>>53281434
As a kid, I dunno. It was scary because mom always said to not let anyone take my sisters from me, and you were always pretty tired. It was better not to move so much and play in the sand. But as I grew older and managed to get a job that didn't require much physical labor (which I couldn't do because I was a skeleton) I started helping my mom. It's not her fault. My dad left, that's when everything changed. I still visit her every weekend, make sure she is eating. I live with my sisters now.

>>53281452
Isn't Chile literally hills and desert? But yeah thanks. I do fine now. I will be going I feel like I derailed the thread. Thanks for reading me.

>>53281535
This. Poverty and starvation is terrible too.

File: thonking.0a_9hSZtqdVMsvAGISLyYKtsXQI.jpg (66KB, 540x459px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 540x459px

>>53281543
thank u for ur cervix, o mighty willed Navy SEAL

>>53281467
Did you know that Ancient Egyptians considered it a sin to beat their slaves? As in, it was something that you would be judged for when you came before Anubis?

You really need to stop calling people presenting you with facts "slave apologists." It doesn't help your argument in any way. Neither does using hyperbole. Also stop saying "slave society" as if there was any alternative in those times. All societies were "slave societies" until technology reached a certain level.

>>53281563
>hills and desert?
When you are this long, you get some of everything. I can take a hike to the sea, the jungle, or the mountains from home.

The south is mostly water though.

>>53281563
No hard feelings Man, like I said I'm glad you got out of there. I still don't think I'd ever be able to bring myself to willingly become a slave. I think the world would be a better place if Noone gave up is all. I'll say a prayer for your mom sounds like she has it rough

>>53281543
Unless you actually experienced that scenario, you can't talk down to other people about it. People have no idea what they're capable off in certain scenarios. Who knows, maybe after 2-3 weeks of starvation you'd be happily sucking dicks from scraps. I know this is a horrible mental image for someone with your ego, but there's no way you'll even know unless you're there. I don't, and i don't claim i do.
>I just don't cotton with a human being having that kind of give up in them.
Letting yourself pathetically die rather then clawing tooth and nail to live is the biggest form of giving up there is.
>Inb4 muh hunting/work/begging
And if none of these are an option?
I'm not even necessarily agreeing with him, but your instant dismissal is pure retardation.

>>53281565
You remind me of the guys on my high school football team that were lazy. There were a few kids that gave it there all in practice everyday and those faggot called them tryhards and mocked them in the locker room constantly.

>>53275915
Humanity never should have climbed down a tree and picked up a tool.

Then why dont you just kill yourself?

>>53281623
I'd rather choose to suck dicks for scrap than become someone's property

>>53281698
It was an example. You don't know is my point. You have no idea. People have no idea what they're capable off in extreme circumstances until they've experienced it. I don't know how i'd react to that scenario, or a whole bunch of others, and i don't claim i do. I can only hope i'd do well. Meanwhile, you're here puffing your chest like it's a done deal. At someone who actually experienced it.

>>53281752
I'm capable of great things. I believe in myself. You need to get some more self confidence dude.

>>53281599
Cite those so-called facts, apologist.

And your second point is total bullshit. A slave society is one in which slaves provide a significant proportion of the economic activity and labor in a society. Hunter-gatherer societies weren't slave societies. Ancient India, China, and Japan weren't slave societies. They night have had slaves, but they were incidental underlying structure of society and economy did not rely on them. In fact, in contravention to your supposed "facts", slavery entered these societies in a significant way much farther along in their development, mostly when a population could be dominated and pressed into slavery i.e. by war.
>inb4 you start moving the goalposts

>>53281772
Self confidence =/= self delusion. Will to power is a thing only to an extent, and you'd be in for and EXTREMELY rude awakening if your actual abilities don't live up to your convictions. Better to keep one's self reasonably humble. I don't know =/= i know i'll fail. And that's the only truth. You DON'T know. It's great that you believe in yourself, as douchy as you came off, but you don't know until it happens. And then, well, hopefully you live up to your expectations.

>>53280129
All people are property, and this has been the case since the dawn of time.

The only person who was never NOT property was the king, and now that there are no kings, nobody is sovereign.

File: 1494305487720.png (197KB, 516x290px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 516x290px

>>53281891
Holy shit, it's like a reverse sovereign citizen but exactly as crazy.

>>53281829
>"slavery apologist" in same vein as calling someone "racist" to denounce their arguments
>"Just because they had slaves doesn't mean it counts"
Christ, not even the fag you're arguing with, but neck yourself.

>>53281829
>he thinks calling someone an apologist wins arguments
lmaoing at your life kid

>>53281853
I've been in quit situations before. It was self inflicted but for weight cutting in wrestling I've dehydrated myself to the point where my piss looks like coca cola. I can do it.

File: 1492305329714.jpg (41KB, 324x394px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 324x394px

>>53274623
>slaves
>bad
Say that to the Turkish empire that attacked Vladimir.

ITT: what the fuck

>>53274623
Equalizing slavery to owning a dog or a wrench. This isn't the same if it was a wrench owning a wrench or a dog owning another dog then this would be a valid comparison. The difference is both the master and the slave are intelligent beings.

>>53277380
>people keep voting democrat or republican

ftfy

>>53281929
>implying the state of being a citizen isn't literal submission to a higher authority
>implying all property necessarily needs to have the same rights/regulations
>implying "property" isn't allegorical in this context to exaggerate the difference between actually being a "free man" and one under a state
>I'm an unread nigger who can only take things literally

The point is that anyone who ISN'T some mountain man living in the forest is not in control of their destiny; they are bound by law and society. Drawing the line at conventional slavery is nothing more than an arbitrary argument over feelings.
"No, no, it's okay to restrict someone's freedom -this- much, but no further, because it's bad okay?"

>t. not even a sovcit/libertard, and despises them greatly

>>53274623
Because the position of the slave is unjustified, and so they need to be dehumanized and treated with hostility to justify their position , and the owners behavior.

>>53281952
Am I supposed to go though the records and try to prove a negative? I'm sure there were communities, tribes, villages, and so on in which slavery never existed, but I decided to not state something I can't prove positively so I allowed the possibility of some slavery that doesn't yet meet the threshold for a slave society.

>>53282031
>Because the position of the slave is unjustified
"They done did a bad crime, but the society believes in either making its more serious malcontents useful (slavery) or just getting rid of them entirely (execution)"

There, justified.
Prisons are reserved for lesser criminals that won't be in there for more than a few months.
Slavery is reserved for more serious crimes, with the acceptable behavior towards each particular class of slave determined by the severity of their crime.
Execution is reserved for truly serious capitol crimes.

If you want to get fun with it, make homelessness a slavery-worthy crime as well, with the stipulation that homeless slaves are a special class of slaves that are to be treated well, with some amount of money set aside by their owners/ the state to be rewarded upon the completion of their sentence.

>>53281829
>Cite those so-called facts
Book the Dead, Negative confessions, for example from the Papyrus of Nu.
http://www.masseiana.org/papyrus_of_nu.htm

Look for chapter CXXV, passages:
>I have not ill-treated servants
>I have not caused harm to be done to the servant by his chief

Read more here:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm
Follow the citations.

>Ancient India, China, and Japan
All those societies had a sector of the population that were slaves in all but name. China in particular was pretty bad in this respect, peasants had close to zero rights and were at the mercy of local lord for anything he desired.

File: 25e.jpg (33KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x640px

>>53282025
>equating having social relations of any kind to being someone's property
>oh wait it's just "allegory" so any kind of bullshit flies

>>53282178
>"social relations"
>codified subservience to a sovereign authority, whether that be a monarch, an abstract state, or something else entirely
You don't words good

>>53281409
Hitler wished his fog stepped on a landmine, and tested cyanide on his other.

>>53282210
>Hitler wished his fog
Hitler is Strahd.

File: 1494285873971.jpg (58KB, 831x540px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 831x540px

>>53282194
>having to pay taxes and do jury duty is literally slavery guys

>>53281554
Namely that the Jews are inhuman reptillians that must be purged if the human race is to achieve its destiny.
Also that fags are subhuman degenerates.

>>53282228
>still not getting the point
>still being a memeing little shit who can't bare the thought of have a single sliver of rational thought banging around his head
>implying I even made the claim that contemporary citizenly duties and behavior is equivalent to slavery in terms of severity, rather than in essence
Yes; anything other than being a sovereign individual is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to slavery in essence.
The ONLY difference is severity.

>note that I did not say slavery is necessarily bad, and by extension, that states are bad
>before you go on memeing about le sovcit fuckery

>>53275360
t.commie scum

>>53275360
And the moral of THIS story is that anyone who insists on following their a priori philosophy to the letter, in pursuit of utopia, is actually a fucking retarded who should be fed to dogs.

>>53281370
I wouldn't say bad, but naive, idealistic, and most definitely well-fed.

>>53282174
>There were apparently times when order was barely enforced and people, above all women, were abducted and enslaved.
>The least fortunate captives were sent to work as slaves in the dreadful gold and copper mines of Nubia and Sinai, where, according to the Greeks, water was rationed and men died in great numbers from exhaustion and dehydration in the desert heat.
>Treating a slave well was a moral precept, but the very fact that decent treatment of slaves was a moral duty means that they must have been treated badly quite often.
>"Two men escaped from the supervisor of the stables, Neferhotep, who had ordered them to be beaten. Since their flight there is no one to plough the earth. I'm sending this to inform my lord."
>During the Roman domination of Egypt slavery may well have become harsher

And your claim about China is bullshit. Freedom of movement was far looser in ancient China, such that leaving the village to find opportunities to labor elsewhere was a common practice, especially around the Pearl River Delta. How could they be at the mercy of the local lord anywhere near the status of slavery if they could just pick up and leave?

>>53277189
>"Not really all so bad" means that it wasn't always as bad as the plantations of the Caribbean or the American south.
Just usually.

>>53282304
Holy shit, I'm having a giggle. Wanna be my slave buddy? Since it's all the same to you of course. Won't make you sign any scary government forms or sit in wood paneled rooms for half an hour, honest.

>>53282565
Mate, I am literally a statist. Unironically and without humor. I do not have any sympathy towards sovereign citizens or their retarded outlook on life.

Regardless of that, there is no essential difference between "citizenship" and "slavery"; only in severity and rights afforded.
I know it must be hard following a simple argument when you're semiliterate, but you really must try harder.

>>53277825
>Freedom was no guarantee of a decent life
It's just an essential component to being able to build a decent life for yourself.

>>53278195
You forgot how, in America and a couple other places, they also decided to breed their slaves like livestock. Meaning they were a self-renewing resource, and thus those who owned large numbers of slaves could treat them more disposably than someone who only owned one or two.

>>53278964
>those reports aren't reliable!
>those former slaves had an incentive to lie so they could get sympathy
Every. Single. Time.

>>53282630
And liking animals is literally the same thing as being a furry, "in essense", they only differ in severity.

That essence thing sure takes you a long way.

>>53282467
Okay mate, you're all over the place and I have no idea what you're trying to argue anymore. Focus your argument.

If you're saying that labor slaves were treated harshly in the ancient world, then yes, that's true and nobody is denying that. But if you're saying that being a slave was the absolute worst fate that could befall you in the ancient world, that's quite false. Just being a slave did not guarantee you a lifetime of toil in the mines, since there were quite a few classes of slaves that were treated quite differently.

Now lets go to China.
>How could they be at the mercy of the local lord anywhere near the status of slavery if they could just pick up and leave?
Because then, they'd be at the mercy of another, similar local lord. The law was similar throughout all of China. The main point here is that disobeying a legal order by one of higher rank was not really an option for anyone in China. Additionally take a look at how women were treated. Finally, I have to point out that all this is contingent on the time period we're talking about. Commoner protections definitely increased under Mongol rule.

File: 1476108341049.png (934KB, 738x738px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 738x738px

>ctrl+f "I would be a slave"
0 results

Every one of you faggots claiming that slaves had it great is full of shit.

>>53281250
>tfw 3rd world anon was trying to use their shitty life to justify shitty behavior
>1st world anon was just trying to give them a reality check
I bet South Americans wonder why their continent is a shithole of dictators and jungle insurgencies.

>>53282807
You're full of shit too, because nobody is claiming slaves had it great.

>>53282814
Its quite clear that 1st world anon is the one that needs a reality check. You as well.

>>53280611
Stay on tumblr you pitiful child

>>53282740
Did I say it was the worst thing? Look at the post you quoted here: >>53281467. The whole point is that slave societies themselves create the conditions for slavery and for forcing people into slavery; there's no point in giving slave societies credit for treating slaves nicely if they themselves are the ones who turn people into slaves. You tried to argue with some apologia again that slaves in Egypt didn't have it so bad because of some bullshit, when the sources you provide still say that they were treated like shit, so I'm the one at a loss for what you're trying to prove. Maybe you should be the one who focuses your bullshit arguments.

>vague pointing at China
Han dynasty China had a system of local bureaucrats and magistrates to whom legal disputes could be arbitrated under a set of codified laws, not some warlordism "what I say goes" bullshit; and the vast majority of labor was under a system of landlords and tenants. Slaves comprised only 1% of the population; compare that with the Greeks and Romans in the same time period.
>other points of only incidental relevance
The goalposts are wobbling.

>>53282839
No, you see I live in a free country where tinpot assholes in military hats don't control every aspect of law and government. And where if they try to take over, there's this part of the constitution that makes it really easy to arm yourself and fucking shoot them.

Funnily enough, I can also use that rifle to catch food. And it's not like we don't have mountain lions or bears up here. Fuck, moose can kill you easily, and they're not even predators.

>all this outrage at people considering slavery to be less than the greatest evil

Americans exist in the height of wage-slavery and welfare, society is so burgeoning and invasive that there IS no other choice. As if the civilization that ran Southern slavery would have ever been rehabilitated, lmao. Your ideas aren't yours to keep any more, nor your time, not your attention not your vote nothing. It's a pretension of liberty.

Modern humans are allergic to freedom; of course we can see the benefits to slavery.

>>53274758
>Bonus Fact slaves did not built the pyramids

>>53280129
>Are you actually arguing slavery is ok?
No, I just threw some history your way my dear triggerino tumblurino and you drew your own conclusions.

>>53282009
>>people keep voting democrat or republican
>le both sides are the same :^)
Congrats, you are part of the problem

>>53277727
>It will, because that's all most people know about when it comes to slavery.
Only if you're an americuck.

>>53282913
>No, you see I live in a free country where tinpot assholes in military hats don't control every aspect of law and government.
Only because El Presidente hasn't tried out some Stolen Valor yet

Niggers aren't human anyway and anyone saying otherwise hasn't dealt with them enough.
No issues anyway, your descendants will be murdered in a couple of generations but at least you weren't racist.