Thread Closed
(11-06-2015, 04:24 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:(11-06-2015, 04:19 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: As Marx and Engels say, the definition of being a "Worker" is the inability to refuse work.Â
That a worker must accept the best work they can find, or perish.Â
I would not judge anyone too harshly for their line of work, friend. If they could find a better paying/safer job, they'd probably do it. However life is not always so kind.
I'm unclear as to where I judged her line of work. I'm pretty sure I judged her for claiming her choice of work is a justification to claim social injustice is occurring towards her.Â
If the guy at Starbucks wants to get butthurt because some people don't call him "barista" and instead refer to him as "coffee dude", that's not social injustice either and also doesn't warrant a PC crusade.
I think the issue at hand is that coffee dude is not being marginalized or at risk for injury, death, or inappropriate legal ramifications based on an old moral point of view that is changing.
I'm particularly persnickety about language, and you know, maybe I'm wrong or whatever. Fine if people disagree with me -- but people in the sex industry are being victimized. It's your choice if you think they deserve it or whatever, but it is a bit of a rights thing. If a person decides they want to use their body for sex, does that make it okay to injure or kill them? Is it the government's place to tell someone what they can or can't do with their body? Is it okay to use hate speech against someone just because of their line of work? Those types of questions, which are directly related to the point of trying to minimize harm to people who choose (or are forced via bad socioeconomic conditions) this line of work.
I just disagree about the language and the presentation. But I do believe there is an issue with sex and morality that is dated and no longer relevant that is harmful not only to people in the sex industry, but .... pretty much everyone. Some much more than others.