Okay, let's try this again:

The word "slave" has many meanings. In some sentences ("she was no slave to fashion"; your definition 1.2) the meaning is clearly casual. In others ("this is modern slavery") it isn't clear whether your definition 1 is meant, or something less serious like your definition 1.1. I think the distinction between those is so important that the word should be avoided when there's any hint of doubt as to which meaning is intended. I don't know how to succinctly express the concept of "yes real slavery coerced with violence, the really bad kind" otherwise. (Do you? How would you do it?) I consider the concept important enough in human history that I think that succinct expression is important.

Maybe you disagree with my position, but I don't think it's as incomprehensible as you seem to imply. Here's an academic expressing roughly the same ideas in the context of adjunct professors:

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/200-adjuncts-aren-t-slaves-l...

Do you think he's wrong? Or if he's right, how is his argument different from mine? If you don't try seriously and specifically to comment on Prof Leonard's argument, then I won't respond further.

I don't think your linked definition is great--"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". It seems to exclude slaves held extra-legally (like most of those at sea today), and to blur the line in cases where law (e.g., relating to debt) doesn't actually make the slave legal property, but provides a strong enough coercive effect that the result is the same.

Note that there are people who believe American law to be sufficiently coercive in the case of our Amazon workers that the condition is satisfied, and that they really are slaves by something close to your definition 1. Do you believe that? In referring to work at Amazon as "modern slavery", which of your linked definitions do you think is intended?

You might ask who I am to disagree with the dictionary; but the definition of slavery is a difficult question that academics debate. They're not satisfied with the dictionary, so I feel no need to be. Here is one summary, from a legal viewpoint:

https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/allain_-_contem...

The word "slave" is a heavy word to many people, in the same category as something like "Nazi". There is a movement in some academic disciplines to avoid the word entirely, in part to encourage language that shares more detail of the enslaved person's life, in part just because it's a really heavy word.

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/10/12/the-...

I disagree with that argument, except in cases where the modified language actually adds information (e.g., "slave" to "enslaved blacksmith", but not "slave" to "enslaved person"). I understand and respect it, though.

So I don't think the idea that "slave" is perhaps among the dozen heaviest words in the English language is unique to me here.

> > I'm writing because I can manage a polite, constructive discussion with almost everyone

> I mean that's pretty blatantly false.

I said "almost". This thread is the "almost". I'm hoping to change that.

I encourage you to read Prof Leonard's argument; perhaps he can express what I've failed to. I hope most interactions in your life are more positive than this thread.