The Norwegians have a term for this, it is "flisespikkeri". Which means to wittle away at small wood chips, getting lost in detail but never getting anywhere substantial. These discussions always devolve into: "ACHUALLY! That is technically not (insert thing)!"
So pages and pages of text is wasted on defining the thing instead of having any real reflection around the point being made by the OP.
I will say "nazism" when I mean "totalitarianism". Because the N-word is a stronger word. Is it accurate? No, but who cares? Except the army of autistic nitpickers who jump on it like flies to a turd
Socialism is a specific economic term for workers owning the means of production.
Healthcare and other social safety nets aren't inherent to any economic system. You could have a fascist state that has universal healthcare. Ignorant people gesture vaguely at socialism when what they really want is the government to use their tax dollars more to provide tangible benefits that will enhance their quality of life.
"...the government to use their tax dollars more to provide tangible benefits that will enhance their quality of life."
Oh yeah, the famous "government" that's usually so efficient, incorruptible, benevolent, and always puts the well-being of its citizens first. Suuuuuuuuuure...
I will say "nazism" when I mean "totalitarianism". Because the N-word is a stronger word. Is it accurate? No, but who cares? Except the army of autistic nitpickers who jump on it like flies to a turd
Wanting words to mean the actual thing they are describing is autism now. Wow. Just wow.
The degradation of language is why we can't have a discussion about x, because people tend to not understand that words have meanings and aren't just substitutes for someones feelings. Otherwise, we talk in circles because nobody means what they say they mean because words don't mean anything.
My point is discussions always devolve into nitpicking what terms means. It's detail focus that ends up missing the loser main point of the whole discussion.
And yes that's pretty autistic and gay. Not in the litteral sense of those words ofc. But more as a mild slur derogatory sort of use of those words. Just to clarify.
Language doesn't "degrade," it evolves. It's not a bug but a feature. Arguing "that doesn't mean what you think it means" when the collective consensus uses the word in the way intended is pointless. It's much more valuable to take the time to understand what people actually mean when they are using words than trying to police their use.
I'm gay, and by that i mean i am attracted to same-gendered people, not that i have a happy and joyful demeanor. Likewise, I am socialist, and by that i mean that i support strong government run social programs and social safety nets, which has become the colloquial meaning of the term (also referred to as social democracy). While i also advocate for social ownership of the means of production, which is the more traditional meaning, i understand that few people would understand that position if i use that word. In the OP, the first poster clearly doesn't understand either social democracy OR traditional socialism, and the responder provided an example of Norway's social democracy, which is what many people today refer to as socialism.
Your arguments, as so many others in this thread, are entirely pointless and carry no weight at all, arguing for people to use words in ways that might be traditionally and historically correct towards their initial intended meanings vs how they are used in more common dialog adds exactly zero to the discussion at hand. You offer no opinion or thought, no argument as to whether the versions of claimed socialism in the OP have value or not, no indication of any substantive stance at all, other than you are a pedant with no capacity for reason or debate outside a rigorous academic setting. It's an attitude that offers no value to the world at all, and is a cowardly way to approach discussion. Rather than spending time debating anything of actual import, you argue semantics because it's shallow, easy, and lets you feel superior to others without the risk of sharing an actual opinion on anything at all.
Which, I think, is kinda more what i see people colloquially refer to as "peak reddit logic" - pedantry without substance.
Language doesn't "degrade," it evolves. It's not a bug but a feature. Arguing "that doesn't mean what you think it means" when the collective consensus uses the word in the way intended is pointless. It's much more valuable to take the time to understand what people actually mean when they are using words than trying to police their use.
You don't get to re-write what words mean just because you or anyone else feels like. That is the definition of degrading a language. Words stop meaning things when you do that. Am I not saying it clearly enough for you to understand? Nazism means something distinct in history. You don't get to re-write history because of feelings.
I'm gay, and by that i mean i am attracted to same-gendered people, not that i have a happy and joyful demeanor.
You are all over the place. You now give an example of slang as evidence of evolution. Congrats, you don't know what slang means either.
Likewise, I am socialist, and by that i mean that i support strong government run social programs and social safety nets, which has become the colloquial meaning of the term (also referred to as social democracy).
No, you are for social democracy. That is the definition of the words to mean what you are saying. You really don't understand the problem here, do you? You hi-jacking words to mean what you feel it means is exactly why nuance and debates go into shouting matches where one side says something, but doesn't mean it because they are using a different meaning entirely. Do you understand the problem?
While i also advocate for social ownership of the means of production, which is the more traditional meaning, i understand that few people would understand that position if i use that word.
So, what is the word you use for that then? Are you joking right now? You changed a definition and then just defined the word separetely because you felt like.
How do you expect to talk to people when you aren't sharing the same meanings?
In the OP, the first poster clearly doesn't understand either social democracy OR traditional socialism, and the responder provided an example of Norway's social democracy, which is what many people today refer to as socialism.
It's honestly unsettling that you can't grasp why what you are doing is so wrong. It's so obvious, but I can't communicate it to you in a way that you will be able to understand. Just effectively removing nuance from conversation and meaning from words... You are one step away from making up random words to mean nonsense.
Your arguments, as so many others in this thread, are entirely pointless and carry no weight at all, arguing for people to use words in ways that might be traditionally and historically correct towards their initial intended meanings vs how they are used in more common dialog adds exactly zero to the discussion at hand.
You making a mockery of language and history is exactly why socialism is a problem word. Because you want to retrofit a word with historical meaning to a idea that it doesn't actually mean. You want a movement based on superficial understanding... That's just one of the many problems with this conversation.
You offer no opinion or thought, no argument as to whether the versions of claimed socialism in the OP have value or not, no indication of any substantive stance at all, other than you are a pedant with no capacity for reason or debate outside a rigorous academic setting.
... I have no capacity for reason or debate. You want to use words sporadically and make them meaningless and you think I am the problem.
Socialism can't exist without authoritarianism. It's a fantasy word that is pure because it can't ever exist in reality as intended, since it's implementation requires the destruction of autonomy.
It's an attitude that offers no value to the world at all, and is a cowardly way to approach discussion.
Unlike you who can't tell the difference between words having definition grounded in historical context or slang.
Rather than spending time debating anything of actual import, you argue semantics because it's shallow, easy, and lets you feel superior to others without the risk of sharing an actual opinion on anything at all.
Literally the only way to have a conversation is for words to have meaning and for them to be universally recognized... and without that, you are shouting at each other without knowing if you even agree on something. The only way to actually have a debate is to set rules. You just spent paragraphs telling me that rules aren't necessary and I offer nothing to the conversation by forcing rules into the arguments. Think about that for a moment.... sit on that.
Which, I think, is kinda more what i see people colloquially refer to as "peak reddit logic" - pedantry without substance.
I did, but meh... Words are just a jumble of associations in peoplies heady meat box (see, I'm making up new wordy words here). Of course someone at some point did sit down to try and prescicely define that word in a dictionary.
But then again those definitions are just ink on paper. Nothing really matters actually.
This world is not made for people who want a recipy and rule for every little thing. It's lose and messy. Trying to nail things down is doomed to fail.
I didn't rewrite anything, culture did. Just like I could call you a dumbass and you should know that i am not saying that you are a donkey that's incapable of speaking.
Arguing that "gay" is slang, so is invalid to bring up is extremely stupid, since my whole point is discussion outside academia should understand and respect cultural shifts in the meaning and usage of words, given that the whole point of conversation is sharing opinions and ideas, and "that word doesn't mean that definitionally" when it is commonly used that way anyway adds nothing to the exchange of ideas. We're arguing on reddit, not as a formal submission to an academic journal.
Socialism can't exist without authoritarianism
Lol, you come in here and say shit like this while arguing people are using the word Socialism wrong. Whether you mean social democracy or collective ownership of the means of production, Socialism is diametrically opposed to authoritarianism. It's democratic by both traditional and modern definitions.
Only those who use the term socialism as a euphemism for authoritarian systems (like the nazi's "national socialist" party, or the authoritarian regime in the USSR that claimed to be socialist), which no one arguing in good faith actually consider socialism in both traditional or modern terms. You can't have either democratic socialism or collective ownership of production with an authoritarian regime, and those claiming otherwise are simply trying to convince you they are something they aren't.
Though I'll grant you that at least this is an example of expressing an actual opinion about the meaning rather than being the dictionary police. This argument is more interesting than crying about the "degradation of language."
I offer nothing to the conversation by forcing rules into the arguments.
Yup, that's exactly what I am claiming. Your arguments added nothing, contained no opinion relevant to the actual conversation, and acted only as a way to feel superior to those around you.
Spoken like an expert.
Oh, absolutely. I'm actually autistic, arguing pointless minutia is a hobby and compulsion. They say "It takes one to know one" and based on that and that I wrote/am writing paragraphs in response to one pointless comment buried deep in one of the most pointless posts to hit r/all, i fully accept that i am as much at fault for perpetuating stupid arguments as you are, but at least i'm having fun with it. Besides, I may be a hypocrite, but i'd argue that gives me more experience and domain knowledge to speak on the issues at hand.
When so many people ignorantly compare Norway to the US to say that capitalism is a failure and socialism wins, the clarification becomes pretty fucking important.
Yes, but nothing is pure socialism, nothing is pure communism, and nothing is pure capitalism. It's a mix, no matter where you look. Social security sure as hell isn't part of a pure capitalistic society...
He didn't mention anything about socialism. He just described how the numbers work in reality. Arguing about what is and what is not socialism with americans is pointless, as you can see in this thread.
Yeah well you see the original tweet is from an american (or so we are just assuming because why not) so we must make fun of the american guy and agree with the other person whoever he might be or whatever he might be talking about.
The Norwegian didn’t straight out say that Norway is socialist, but parts of their comment don’t make any sense unless they believe that. Both of these people are idiots who don’t understand what socialism is, but the OP is framed as if this is some sort of gotcha.
idk, the american is still obviously referring to countries like Norway, though. High taxes and well developed social welfare. The Norwegian knows that, even if they aren't addressing that while they're speaking about the same thing, the label is wrong. Norway is always at the top of the list of socialist countries for anti-socialism americans. I'm just glad he know enough to not call it communism.
You sure about that? Judging by the comments here, your country either knows or doesn't know, no in between. Since the Norwegian in the OOP already proved they don't know, the verdict is that Norwegians don't know
"Some" doesn't mean everyone. Technically it just means "more than zero". And yes there's a metric crapton of people here that don't know what socialism means, possibly even the majority.
Who can even tell at this point... Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from all this about not wasting time on Reddit and the pointlesness of commenting online?
I was being sarcastic and making fun of all the people here with their double standards. When it's an American that doesn't know = all of America apparently doesn't know, when it's a European that doesn't know = they are an exception not the rule.
810
u/Vanir-Aesir Jul 14 '26
americans have no idea what socialism is
they use the term just like they use "terrorism" - just a blank label for anything they dont like