In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
That's a ludicrous definition of prison and infantilizes the experiences of actual prisoners.
Prisons are not when "you are forced to be somewhere." Prisons are violent institutions of slavery and torture.
If your definition of prison includes "being required to be in English class" and slaves putting out Californian wild-fires, you may need to rethink it.
Ok, but those things aren't the essential features of prisons. There are prisons in the world without slavery and torture. If you lock someone in a cell for committing a crime, and force them to take a class, I don't see how that wouldn't qualify as a prison.
How would you define a prison?
Edit: And wait, I literally specified "as a punishment", which obviously excludes English class. Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret what I'm saying?
First to address your edit. What is a "punishment?" Who decides when something is a punishment?
Does the subject or the institution decide when they are being "punished?"
A student forced to take a class may see it as a punishment, even if the institution does not consider it a punishment.
A criminal forced in a re-education program may see it as a punishment, even if the institution does not consider it a punishment.
You consider the latter a prison, but you do not consider the former a prison.
It's based on the intent of the person or institution doing the imprisoning. Not just what they say, but what their objectives are, which we obviously can't be absolutely certain about. There are a lot of thing like that. Is there no such thing as a lie just because people disagree on what does or does not qualify as one, or because we can't tell for sure what's going on in someone's head when they apparently tell one?
A student in a high school is objectively not being punished just because they're in high school, because they're there to learn about science and history and stuff, not to be punished. Re-education may or may not constitute a punishment, I don't know, but how the person or institution locking the person up categorizes it doesn't matter. That is, if their intentions are logically consistent with the definition of a punishment, it qualifies as a punishment. If not, it doesn't. Likewise, I would also not necessarily consider a person in a psychiatric hospital to be a prisoner.
And again: what's your alternative? A prison is when you lock somebody up but also it's bad?
Prisons are an instrument which violently subjugates those considered "criminal" by the ruling class. It is not when you force people to go somewhere.
What do you mean by "instrument"? Because guns can do all the things you described, making them prisons per your definition when used as such. I also wouldn't consider an execution to be a prison; not because it isn't a bad thing or because it's not repressive, but because it deviates too much from what people are actually referring to when they say the word prison.
And what defines "violently"? Is locking someone in somewhere not an act of violence? And in what way does directing violence against someone for being considered a criminal differ from punishing someone for a crime?
Guns alone cannot do what I'm describing. A person wielding a gun can contribute to a prison.
Neither would I, that's just executing someone.
I would consider physical harm or withholding necessities to human life to be violence. The constant use of these are a core component of prisons. Schools, hospitals, re-education camps, etc. all include the threat of violence if someone does not comply, but the institution does not require violence to function.
Either the gun itself or a person wielding a gun, depending on what exactly you mean by "subjugates", is the prison. If at the very least a person with a gun doesn't qualify as a prison, then it follows that a person with a gun can't subjugate a "criminal".
But it's (a) an instrument which is inherently violent (b) an instrument that can subjugate criminals and ( c) is used by the ruling class to do so. So what's the difference?
So if a criminal is locked in a cell, but not otherwise harmed, they aren't in a prison? Or is being locked in a cell inherently violent?