In other words, slave moved up the value chain and no longer wants to slave for their masters.
In other words, slave moved up the value chain and no longer wants to slave for their masters.
That word has been used to describe many things for many years in many different ways. It is not a holy or forbidden word and it wasn't used in anyway that deviated from standard use.
>and it wasn't used in anyway that deviated from standard use.
Slave:[0]
1 a person held in forced servitude
2 disapproving : a person who is completely subservient to a dominating influence a slave to fashion/technology
3 : a device (such as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4 : drudge, toiler
While 4 could have been the intent here (2 has a negative conotation for the slave) if we only look at it's ability to descibe the relationship between China and the US, looking at the whole sentence:
In other words, slave moved up the value chain and no longer wants to slave for their masters.
It is clear that 1 is being used here. We are using slave as both a noun and a verb, and describing the US as the master. I should also note that 1 is by far the most common definition, and other dictionaries have only that one when used as a noun.[1]
[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave
[1]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/slave
Despite this, someone in the future will write their dissertation on this topic in the affirmative. They will be considered one of the great visionaries of their time in certain circles, despite being totally wrong.
We can only hope that smarter humans will win the day.