you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

Just because the actual defined term requires a law to be broken does not mean there cannot be a colloquial use that illustrates how unjust it is to continue grinding down wages to maximize surplus value.

Language is dynamic, after all.

I get what you're saying, though, and technically speaking, you are correct. I'm not fully sure where I stand on the misuse of this word in this context, tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    No, the OP is describing a completely different concept. This isn’t an argument about only the statutory language applying, it’s a statement that when phrases have commonly agreedupon meanings, attempting to use them differently is actively wasting your audience’s time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments