Perhaps it's slavery, perhaps it's not. I think you're jumping the gun in calling it a done, unambiguous fact.

I think I'm a sensible person, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that it might be slavery. But if I read this article, I don't find it sufficient in proving its claim. It supposes that this might be slavery, it supports its argument with claims made by prisoners. When I think back about prior information I had about this topic, I also wasn't entirely convinced that this is indeed, unquestionably slavery. In fact, I can see a reasonable world in which this might not be slavery. Perhaps a world in which there are some occasions where a judge would rule that this is slavery, but not systematic actual slavery.

You might think that I'm unreasonable in being skeptic and wanting a stronger proof before accepting this claim. But this is an extraordinary claim, and it would require extraordinary proofs. Just reading an article presenting one side of the story and concluding "it's slavery" doesn't cut it to me. It's intellectually dishonest. It sounds good as a party line, as a slogan, but it's not a cold headed conclusion, in my book.

* * *

And I think that denying this is problematic. Because in denying that it's not clear cut, we jump to conclusions, and we make it a cardinal sin to say anything else than the party line. And this means we can't think this through and examine the situation for what it is. We can't talk about it intellectually like you'd want of an HN discussion. We can only talk about it in flames, screams and battles. And what's the point of that.