| ▲ | Razengan 8 hours ago |
| > Although the family has agreed to compensate her, Maria, who lived in near-total isolation and without contact with her relatives, will remain with her employers What the fuck? Why did the law need the family's "agreement"?? Why is nobody going to jail for imprisoning someone for 55 years?? |
|
| ▲ | leoc 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Just going on what it says in the article, it may be difficult to prove that anyone specifically forbade her to leave or made threats to prevent her from leaving. |
| |
| ▲ | flyingshelf 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have some insight into this as my ex ended up in a similar situation in Malaysia. Rich family, no free days, 5-22 work hours. It took me a year to convince her that it was not ok. They took away her passport, phone, she wasn't allowed to go out without them. I was ready to help her but she did not want my help. In the end I'm sure she had to pay her "employer" for breach of contract since she left early. I think she had less than $1000 saved from these 18 months of work. The thing that made me angry the most is that the family was incredibly well off, yet thought they deserve a slave (or more than one) at home. | | |
| ▲ | Razengan 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sadly this kind of crap is also common in Arab countries like Dubai/UAE where the majority of "household help" is expats who get their passports seized and sometimes even beaten. | |
| ▲ | tom86150 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MichaelZuo 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In Brazil there are so many laws, I heard that nearly 100% of the population treats laws like strongly worded suggestions, at best. Idk how the prosecution system even functions without credibility. |
| |
| ▲ | mcdonje 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If it operates like most corrupt systems, it binds the have-nots, but not the haves. | | |
| ▲ | MichaelZuo 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | How can this be true? Probably the entire adult population gets away with hundreds of offenses per annum on average (judging by the total amount on the books). Even the most law abiding and most humble decile of Brazilian adults probably still get away with dozens of offenses per annum. That nobody cares to enforce at all. | | |
| ▲ | manarth 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "That nobody cares to enforce at all"
That's the point. When everyone is "committing crimes", you can select who you wish to enforce against. It enables corruption. | | |
| ▲ | MichaelZuo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Huh? Did you not understand what it means for even the most humble adult to be getting away with dozens of offenses per annum? It clearly is not binding on the “have-nots” either. Of course there is selective enforcement of some % of laws on the books, that’s true in every country on Earth. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's the usual "criminalize everyone then selectively enforce when politically convenient" corruption. |
|
|
| ▲ | tchalla 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The concern is that Maria’s dependence on the exploiting family is so extreme that removing her abruptly, without a structured support network, could do more harm than good From the article. |
|
| ▲ | assimpleaspossi 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You reckon swearing is what makes the difference? | | |
| ▲ | assimpleaspossi 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm saying maturity, respect and a modicum of decorum makes a difference. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We didn't get to the point of being disrespectful yet, except perhaps to slave owners, so this intervention seems a little early. Decorum doesn't add much meaning (it means don't swear, for instance?), and I get the impression that HN is irredeemably mature and nothing can change that. | |
| ▲ | NopIdoN 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But swearing is "mature language"? | |
| ▲ | izacus 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh no, someone used a poopy word when talking about slave owners. You poor thing. | |
| ▲ | mcdonje 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To whatever degree this site isn't a cesspool, we owe it to Dang, not the bad word police. They didn't swear at you, so there's no reason to get bent out of shape about it. It's ironic you're taking this stance on an article about a respectable family that literally kept a slave. There's a difference between superficial trappings of respectability, and actually treating people with respect. | | |
| ▲ | gosub100 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Dang (and the other dude) do great work, but still I disagree. The GP comment was extremely low-effort. and while "complaining that HN is turning into reddit" is against site guidelines, I still agree with the critical comment. It's not the profanity alone, but the reddit-ism of the OP using the site as a complaint board (that's a large portion of reddit, especially local subreddits), and then making a 0-effort comment that any reasonable person will automatically agree with. The whole equation taken together is the formula for Reddit's echo chamber. The only people who tolerate that here are the noobs that are stepping outside their reddit coccoon and bringing the stink with them. | | |
| ▲ | fzeroracer 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't agree with the critical comment at all, particularly because the OP is incredibly guilty of making drive-by comments in their very recent post history that don't actually add anything to the conversation. People will complain about the site 'becoming reddit' while making inane posts that are clearly against the rules or don't actually bring anything to the conversation. People don't practice what they clearly preach. In either case, this post and thread are entirely off topic. At least GPs comment was somewhat relevant as opposed to this entire set of pedantry. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | phoghed 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Between the two of you only one is violating the guidelines. Their comment at least asks a question their are curious about. Yours just nags and tries to shut down discussion. | |
| ▲ | izacus 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which part is objectionable to you? | |
| ▲ | Razengan 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not the pompous posh upscale establishment it likes to pretend to be either heh look at the low effort shit that gets through and encouraged as long as it rides on a popular hatewagon or whatever: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48880604 | |
| ▲ | functionmouse 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | poopie | | | |
| ▲ | RickJWagner 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
