Are we defining slavery here as top-down control?
I'm defining it more broadly as a inability to effectively have freewill due to a loss of
independent control over one's choices.
Making choices which do not achieve premeditated goals is not a causal (and thus not an independent) relationship and the person is not in control. Making choices which achieve goals, but those goals were coerced or driven by mind control is not being in control. By control, I mean in an entropy equation, where the potential outcomes are independent.
I am choosing to use the term slavery, because
SJWs abuse the term to incorrectly claim that they have achieved the elimination of slavery.
What you are describing here is a failure of potential or a limitation of self-actualisation.
Using the word slavery is a particularly poor choice of wording as it implies and absolute and fixed limitation on freedom rather then a gradual increase in self-actualisation over time.
Is this conversation so threatening or what you feel to be the definitional errors of others so infuriating that you feel compelled to sacrifice communication in the name of rhetoric? Is it not better to simply point out what you feel to be the errors of others and use wording that accurately conveys the concepts you are trying to convey?
What exactly do you feel is inaccurate in the original table and why? Also it would help if you would provide your definition of slavery.
As I already stated, your apparent bias to want to frame everything in terms of the importance of non-existent absolutely true morals (from my perspective my opinion that is a manifestation of your lack of freewill because you are enslaved in God religion delusion), leads you to put entries on the table which I assert are irrational, incorrect, and myopic.
...
How many times have I told you both publicly and in private messages that top-down control doesn't mean there is only one top authority. A diversification of cults each with their own top-down control, is consistent. Never do we have in the universe a falsifiable example of a single top-down authority for any phenomenon. Even you noted that religions are not all the same.
...
Afaics, the only absolute and thus noble goal is to adapt to maximize the increase in entropy in the universe.
I see so let me see if I understand your perspective. You feel that by accepting God as true and by accepting religion as a mechanism for optimising cooperation and health I am joining a philosophical cult?
You acknowledge that some kind of philosophical cult is a requirement for all individuals (each with its own top-down control and organization) but but you reject the religious explanation because of it's claim of moral truth?
In its place you promote the cult of maximizing entropy which you claim is moral truth.
From this truth you hope to rally a group of like minded atheist white men in the Philippines and form a cooperative and vibrant community where men are strong and control their women. You oppose coercion and do not feel force should be used to compel women to join or stay in your community. You believe women will voluntarily rush to give up their emancipation and join your community as the attraction of a true community of strong men will be overwhelming?
Do you foresee potential problems establishing your new community?