What do you make of this nonsense?

I knew these people were insane but holy shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Wew. They should listen to the words of their founder.

this is your brain on fallacy dropping

Please get back to me after you understand elementary logic.

Literally "Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the socialister it is."

It's more important to keep clear and set discourse in politics rather than let American newspeak set in.

If you allow them to alter the word socialism to mean "reformed capitalism", it will make it that much harder for the people to even imagine a word beyond capitalism.

Whoops, poop posting flag was on.

That moment when rationalism becomes absurdism.

That's exactly how I would describe marxspeak, the dreary self-referential dialect that only really means it's own confirmation.

"Marxspeak" is the original discourse before it was twisted by bourgeois ideological institutions.

There you have it, marxspeak, designed to limit the range of thought to the dichotomy between worker and bourgoise.

Why don't you try being intellectually honest for once in this thread? You might feel better.

Please provide the logical proof for this so I can claim it as my own and become the greatest linguist of all time.

Here's something objectively false:
"Socialism is when the government does stuff."

It's the "class reductionism" meme all over again. Peak liberalism. The fact that you have this violent knee-jerk reaction to do much as the mention of class politics show how liberal discourse limits discussion to only those views that fit within its ideology.

Explain to me how words have objective meanings outside of their use that would therefor still exist if they're from a dead language that nobody speaks anymore, and would also mean that a word can not have different meanings in different languages.

You don't mention merely mention class, you present it's marxist dichotomy as a defining feature and a priori in a discussion, with non-marxspeak being a liberal limitation against this truly representative language game. It's a very effective way of begging the question.

They know Nazis are toxic and are trying to conflate Socialism with them.
If you want free healthcare you're worse than Hitler.

Bourgeois = capitalist = owner of means of production and purchaser of labour below it's actual value
ideological institutions = schools, universities and other social structures that both intentionally and inadvertently promote ways of thinking that support the supremacy of capitalists

The dichotomy between workers, ie suppliers of labour, and bourgeois, same as described above, is the primary relationship that keeps capitalism running. There are other relationships in society, but that between oppressor and oppressed is, and always has been the core of the clearly distinguished stages of human economic development.

Even if we accept that premise and socialism now legitimately refers to anything the government does, that doesn't undermine any argument on behalf of the workers owning the MoP or a planned economy. All it means is that th label "socialist" no longer properly applies to us. So saying "price controls are socialism" is about as much of a non argument as you can get, since trying to associate position A with position B doesn't actually address the validity of position A.

It's like if I just said "dogs and cats are the same thing" over and over until people started to use one word to refer to both animals. That wouldn't automatically mean that everybody who likes dogs must also now like cats.

This is also an important point to make. Even if Nazi Germany was socialist you would have to prove that their socialist economic model somehow resulted in the Holocaust. You could just as equally make the argument that Hitler had a moustache and therefore everybody with a moustache wants to kill 6 million Jews and invade Poland.

There are people. There are people who pay people to work. I know this, I know the language you use to describe this.

What I don't know is why this is defining, with all else being a holographic representation of the aforementioned one-dimensional axiom. It also provides numerous contradictions, for why would universities allow marxist professors and students who openly state that they want to violently overthrow capitalism, while banning racists who want sustain the capitalist order?

No, simply saying "bourgeois" in no way limits non-Marxist discussion. Simply using the word "bourgeois" and talking about class politics doesn't limit liberal discourse, whereas trying to redefine socialism into something that doesn't challenge the liberal democratic paradigm does limit Marxist discussion.

It does when the implication is that these are the defining features as it's a priori.

That what is what's defining features?

That class is the defining feature of capitalism? Yes, this is the claim of Marxism and other socialist ideologies. This claim does not hinder the discourse of those who disagree with the aforementioned claim.

Socialism concerns itself with people, therefore people and their relationships with one another will be at the center of the issue. That issue primarily being that workers are nothing but a commodity, selling their labour (more specifically labour power, or potential labour) piecemeal to a capitalist per hour, receiving compensation less than he deserves, lest the employer make no money at all, because he does not add value to the product, at least not in proportion to the work he puts in. It's not simply a transaction, it is parasitism.

I'll need citation on that first point, but your claim is that anyone who claims to be socialist automatically aligns themselves with that view, you should realize that most people who claim to be socialist are limp dicked socdems, or reformist pacifists. These people even existed in Marx's time. If I made my views known, and was banned for promoting violence, they'd be right to do so.

Racism has become bad for business, and I've never heard anybody exclaim "Burn the niggers, hang the kikes! Save capitalism!" or anything remotely of the sort. It's usually nationalism, and business has gone global.

Good night for now.

I think you have my position confused. I don't think this at all.