Inmates at a Mississippi jail were ordered to do the guards' bidding
Mood
heated
Sentiment
negative
Category
news
Key topics
Prison Abuse
Human Rights
Law Enforcement
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
18m
Peak period
15
Hour 2
Avg / period
4.8
Based on 38 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 23, 2025 at 10:37 AM EST
16h ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 23, 2025 at 10:55 AM EST
18m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
15 comments in Hour 2
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 23, 2025 at 8:17 PM EST
6h ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
This incident took place at a prison, the “as punishment” space that allows the state to enslave American citizens.
The last I knew I was working for a company that powers their cogs earning millions whereby I get a pittance.
Modern day slavery isn't forced unlike previous generational eras sure, but we still get ripped off for the sake of forced living.
Only ever made passive aggressive comments.
It’s indirect, but it’s still force.
do you want to force him to pay you? would that not just be the same thing in reverse?
does that mean that everyone should be paid by everyone?
I never understood this sort of reasoning.
Why is it ok to force someone to pay for fighter planes, moon missions and freeways but not for food and healthcare?
Are you suggesting nobody should pay taxes?
if your point is that on a societal level there should be a social security system, we're in agreement.
The exchange was about how "a boss" had power over you. I just pointed out that an individual company could not be held responsible for that security system. So yes, your boss has power over you?
But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work.
If you lose your job for longer, you still get fed and housed, but it's a painful experience. Partly to force you back to work, but mainly for a simple economic reason : we don't have infinite wealth to redistribute.
To redistribute wealth you need to generate it first. If there were no "force" on people, people would be less likely to drive a bus 8h a day, wake up at 3am to bake bread, or work 8h a day in a factory. I agree that their life would be better, and they might take better care of their children or parents, make more art, or read more books. But since that does not generate a working bus system, bread, or money that you can redistribute, I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?
That’s incorrect.
Australia pays benefits forever. Even if you’ve never had a job. Even if you quit because you were bored.
Plenty of countries have free university, and pay a living allowance to students.
I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?
Provide a good base life (healthcare, for a start), and offer good wages to those who choose that. Again, plenty of countries do that now.
If I am your employer and I know you don’t really have any viable options/are economically insecure, I can put the squeeze on you because I know if I lay you off or you quit your life could be ruined. I know that the threat of you losing your job is going to drastically increase your tolerance for what I can ask of you. That is not a very tenable situation and it’s one a lot of people experience, whether their employer knowingly does it or not.
It’s not a fair power dynamic at the end of the day. In that case it’s true - my employer can force me to do a lot of things I would otherwise not agree to.
For an even less severe example, think of how many people have had to say the phrase “I can’t say no, I will lose my job.” In an ideal world you would be able to apply “the free market” to bad jobs, but in reality it’s nothing like that in the slightest except in very narrow cases and usually for a temporary duration. Many people simply can’t walk no matter how much pressure and abuse is applied to them. Hence “wage slave” as a term.
Force is measured in newtons.
Yes it is still certainly debatable, but to so easily dismiss the entire idea and the person proposing it is foolish and privledged.
Practically speaking, even the option to be home bound if you have a home, apartment, or willing caretaker could be a serious blow to the prison industrial complex, and the incentive structures that allow these guards to commit horrific abuse.
Honestly I’m not sure how it would pan out but it does appear that the power to abuse is directly correlated with the number of inmates and revenue generated as a result thereof.
The rich and the poor alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges!
Everyone has exactly the same opportunity to invest in the stock market and make high returns!
Y'know, aside from the pesky fact that a large percentage of Americans have no savings—not because they are feckless and irresponsible with their money, but because wages have not risen to match expenses over the course of several decades.
And the pesky fact that poverty among marginalized groups is disproportionately much higher than among able-bodied white men.
Yes, truly everyone has exactly the same opportunities in this great country of ours!
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that prison is, in many cases, a net negative, as it takes people who committed crimes of opportunity or poverty and turns them into either hardened criminals who see it as a lifestyle, or people who have no choice but to commit crimes to survive, as we treat them as nonpersons and shut them out of society.
There is zero evidence prison is a net negative for society. No one is running RCTs here. Progressives advocating this stuff completely ignore second order effects and we see them play out in west coast cities. The other major fallacy is that criminals can or want to be rehabilitated -- they mostly can't or won't. Prison is undoubtedly negative for the criminals, but that doesn't mean it is a net negative for society.
The issue is what to do for people without a house. But in a perfect society, you're right. We still are not there yet, so working on improving the current systems should be preferred.
The if you can afford it bit makes makes it even more likely that rich and powerful aren't appropriately punished for their crimes.
Maybe improve the prisons instead so everyone has a proper chance at rehabilitation.
That's not much of a defense. All he's saying is they haven't been convicted yet.
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.