Fahran wrote:Duvniask wrote:Going for cheap scores, I see. It's not reductionist, but that's besides the point. You should recognize that the meaning of words don't depend on the whims of every jackass who uses them.
I'm aware. My point is that we shouldn't employ an uncharitable or blatantly wrong (for the context) defintion because it is the more "common" understanding. A poster appealed to Plato's Republic and the immediate response to mention of the word "aristocracy" was to equate it to medieval class systems when that clearly isn't what was intended. Not everybody who favors an aristocracy is about to go all-in on feudalism. The term has received quite a bit of use in various ideological and political circles.
I actually have no serious objections to you employing a more narrow or contextualized definition for socialism. My main objection is that the courtesy should be reciprocated when somebody uses a term in a particular context and we're all aware of the context in which it's being used. Aristocracy with reference the Plato and natural aristocracy should not automatically be associated with feudalism when that has no pertinence to the overall conversation.
You’re just lying here.
The word aristocracy was used. Then, a reference was made to Republican Rome and feudalism. Only afterwards did the poster say ‘but I meant Platonic Aristocracy’, to which the response was ‘then you should have defined that more clearly’.
The way you make it sound, someone wanted to discuss Platonic aristocracy and we all said ‘BOOOOOOHHHH’, which is clearly not what happened.