After a voter said he found it “astonishing” that Haley hadn’t used the word “slavery” at any point in her answer, she asked, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”

  • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m with you on your main point I think, but this

    So if it’s not illegal, it’s fair game

    Is how it works, and how it should work.

      • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        100% agree, but legality is what is being discussed, isnt it? i think we can all agree that there are plenty of things that happen now that should be illegal for moral/common sense/ethical reasons but arent (yet at least).

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is how it works, and how it should work.

      No one is disagreeing with that one piece of the post. You intentionally cut off the second sentence of that post that slavery was legal, and lots of us wanted that to change to make it illegal, and some of us wanted to keep owning other people legal.

      Any reason why you did that?

      • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        because thats the part i disagreed with. the rest of it is fine. also, theres at least one other person in this chain that disagrees with that one piece of the post. i read that whole part of the OPs post as in “fine, you want to play by these rules? well look what happened last time.”

        and if that interpretation of the post is correct, then my point was simply “those are the rules we always play by, and i dont think thats a bad thing”. if that interpretation is incorrect, well then id be interested in knowing what point OP was trying to make.

    • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol no. That definition just leaves corporations everything they need to continue to exploit the fuck out of any and every loophole that exists. When they’re the ones paying billions to decide what is ‘illegal’ the definition ceases to have any value.

      If It not illegal, but it should be, fuck no you shouldn’t be doing it. Get your ‘well tEcHnICaLlY’ bullshit outta here.

      • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        thats not meant to be a “well technically”. thats pretty much how the world always has and continues to work.