You should also read the whole arguments you're presented with, not just cherry-pick the parts you could describe as "personal anecdotes" as if I didn't posit any of the rest of the argument based on the actual definitions posed by the relevant literature.
The first usage of the word "socialism" alongside meaningful definitions were used in the 1830s by Pierre Leroux, where he used the word in an article published in "Le Globe", as well as widely and independently used by followers of the British socialist Robert Owen.
In both cases the term refers to an economic system that shares the interests of all it's people. Which would be more specifically defined in coming politics by social systems that prioritize peoples' needs regardless of economic input or output, rather than an individualist system that prioritizes capital gains.
No, it is not fallacious to expect an adult to be capable of learning something without the chalk and black board. We do it all the time.
Most academics do not disagree with it. Remember that person I'm moving in with? The one I've already been to Sweden to visit? She's a business professor. Academics do not disagree with the correct definition as provided by the source material. That'd be like using the term "general relativity" while disagreeing with Einstein, without which you wouldn't even have the term or any meaning for it.
Academics are the least likely to use the layman's definitions found in a descriptive dictionary. Same as how the definition for "chemicals" you'd find in a dictionary is not quite the same as the one chemists would actually be using in their work.
Did your college and/or university professors never tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source and why? Wikipedia is publicly informed and can be both written and edited by virtually anyone. You have provided no sources. I provided you with names of the people who coined the term, the time at which it was coined, the specific journal in which it was published, and how it would go on to be used in a real political landscape that was actually considering it as a new idea. All of which you can easily follow up with, fact check, read up on, etc, the same as you would for an college level or greater history, economics, or political science paper. That's more than enough sources.
Again, expecting an adult to learn something without it needing to be spelled out for them (which I basically have by now) is not a big ask.
No, Wikipedia is no better than the dictionary. It is "fine", which isn't good enough.
You edited all of those links in after the fact. Had you had them there to start, I would've debunked them too.
Who said anything about a girlfriend? And it's not her own definition of socialism. If it were her own definition I was expecting you to accept simply because she's a professor, that would be an example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, which also happens to be what your other links from these "Nordic institutions" are as well. I merely brought up her occupation there as a singular example for a claim you made about academics, not me.
The vast majority of academics do not agree they are capitalist. They agree they are socialist.
Academics only use layman's definitions when speaking to a layman. Usually while trying to explain the academic definition.
The average person comes up with common definitions. That's why, as both the Oxford English and the merriam-webster dictionary note, they source their definitions based off of common usage by the average person, not by asking academics. So unless you think "goober" is also an academic term with an academic definition, you might want to recognize that there is a big difference between the common definition and the academic, and that's a huge part of what higher education is about in the first place. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goober
Again, I have provided you with several different source points you could be looking at. Again, read the whole argument presented to you. Pierre Leroux, Robert Owens, 1830s, Le Globe. You do realize that the word "source" is not a synonym for "read this link I found after I googled my own opinion" right? It's still a source even if it's not blue and you can't click on it.
I am actively avoiding committing fallacies, and I have succeeded thus far. You on the other hand are committing three, "appeal to authority", "abusive ad hominem", and depending on why exactly you refuse to read up on my sources, either "denying the antecedent" or the "genetic fallacy". I put them in quotes to make it easier for you. :)
1
u/Stage_Fright1 7h ago
You should also read the whole arguments you're presented with, not just cherry-pick the parts you could describe as "personal anecdotes" as if I didn't posit any of the rest of the argument based on the actual definitions posed by the relevant literature.