Not in the way you indicate, especially since there is already a dedicated word for slavery. To the best of my knowledge, robota still refers to work (as in one's job) or labour in general. I most frequently encounter the word robota when I or someone else announces that they are leaving to go to work by saying 'Idem do roboty.'
There isn't really any ambiguity to it and I have never seen the word used as some sort of analogy or synonym for slavery (certainly not in common parlance, though I'm sure it has been used that way somewhere, sometime). If someone wishes to talk about slavery, they will use the appropriate word.
> An old Slavic word robota (slavery is a good translation)...
This is unequivocally false. I speak both Czech ans Slovak, with the word robota being Czech in origin. Robota either means work in general, or manual labour specifically. It does not, nor has it ever, meant slavery. The word for that would be otroctvo in Slovak or
otroctví in Czech.
> There is a huge bias against women as can be seen by statistics of women in C-level positions, or on board seats, or as founders.
The presence of a statistical disparity does not automatically indicate malicious discrimination. I don't doubt that there is some amount of sexism present overall, but we're going to need more than uneven gender distribution to make this judgement.
What about any other jobs or where women are under- or over-represented, like teaching, or nursing, or construction? Are different gender distributions among those an indication of malicious discrimination or sexism in either direction?
> We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices.
I agree with the sentiment that everyone is entitled to do as they wish, even if I don't like it. This includes the choice to do nothing.
What I do not agree with is their choice to do nothing being subsidized by myself and everyone else who works and contributes to the economy and tax revenue. You are entitled to do whatever you want, but not on someone else's dime.
No one is entitled to things merely by virtue of existing, doubly so if they are able to work or provide for themselves and choose not to.
Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable.
Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays.
Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law?
> The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort.
This is merely shifting the goalpost in the game of censorship.
How is
>"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to _invest sufficient effort_ to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"
functionally different from
"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"
?
The particular reasons for someone believing that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs still assumes that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs and puts us right back where we started. Not to mention, how is that a better argument than any other qualification for the same idea? Why not education as opposed to effort? Or experience?
The ultimate issue is that any way you spin it, it leads to a centralized authority being entrusted with the task of determining what is and isn't wrong and that is a fundamental non starter if we are to try and preserve free speech in a meaningful way. No one entity can be trusted to be the arbiter of morality for everyone.
>So why don't managers and administrators work to produce things? They seem capable of labor, and they're paid extra, but they work less. Why?
Management and administration is a skill that not everyone possesses. There are such things as good and bad managers. Just because the work they do doesn't directly output a tangible product doesn't mean it's not valuable. Additionally, it's typically a position with more responsibility as well as accountability which tends to reflect in higher pay. That's not to say it's a perfect system but this is generally how it works.
As for working less, unless you mean they do less physical labour than the people they manage, they often work more. It's unfair to say managers work less because they do management tasks rather than the work their subordinates do. In virtually every job I've had, the more senior the manager, the more hours they worked. Retail especially.
>So let's answer them! Managers and administrators don't produce things because they claim that their positions allow them to optimize labor. Specifically, their bonus pay is based upon the idea that management and administration increases output proportional to their efficacy. It follows that we should measure the output of management practices, and compensate managers according to their actual impact.
They don't just claim their positions optimize labour, it actually does optimize it. I don't understand where this idea that managers are merely irrelevant middlemen who have no impact on the people they manage comes from. Companies seek profit and have no desire to pay people simply for existing, especially if they do not meaningfully contribute to the bottom line. Managers are hired exactly because they do affect the bottom line in a sufficiently meaningful way to justify their presence. And, as with almost any other job, a manager that fails to contribute will be replaced much like any other underperforming employee.
That isn't to say there isn't a thing as too many managers or levels of management or even bad managers that do not get fired, but to sweep them all aside as irrelevant is simply not a realistic interpretation.
Incentives make it easier to care as there is a payoff of some form for doing so. Compulsion eliminates choice and has an attached penalty for not complying. It doesn't make it easier to care, it eliminates the choice entirely. They're nothing alike.
That may be so, but this idea does absolutely nothing to help someone get out of poverty. If you were born to financially illiterate parents and grow up poor or end up poor as a result, pointing to how it was stuff out of your control that made you poor will lead to nothing else but continuing to stay poor until you start doing things and making choices that lead you out of that situation.
It sucks and isn't really fair, but the person best equipped to extract you from poverty is you. No one can make your choices for you, and you're far better off taking your life into your own hands and working to improve it than hoping that greater society will intervene on your behalf simply because your situation isn't favourable to you or because you're not entirely to blame for ending up in it.
How exactly is this the case? By all metrics, humans love consumerism and it, or rather capitalism, allow us to enjoy an exceedingly high quality of life.
There isn't really any ambiguity to it and I have never seen the word used as some sort of analogy or synonym for slavery (certainly not in common parlance, though I'm sure it has been used that way somewhere, sometime). If someone wishes to talk about slavery, they will use the appropriate word.