this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
80 points (97.6% liked)
askchapo
23285 readers
291 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I literally point to the info I reference and try to tie it to a broader point to get the other person to totally ignore and just repeat the dumb shit they already said.
I find it hard to communicate with people when nobody seems to know what words mean
It's tedious, but you can often get farther by agreeing on definitions with them at an early stage. In the process, if you are discussing ideas rather than trying to interpret what a third party was trying to communicate, it's normally better not to get too hung up on wanting your preferred word to have your preferred meaning, because it's very easy to just stipulate a new term that has whatever meaning you prefer for the purpose of the conversation.
Edit: I say this as someone who is very particular about words because, due to being particular about those preferences, I made the mistake of not doing this for like a decade even though it's quite easy most of the time.
Could you provide an example, comrade?
Sure thing. As a low-effort example, here's Lenin responding to a liberal professor making sophistical use of the meaning of "equality," which he counters by accepting that definition of equality as a logically valid concept that no one believes and explaining that that concept is different from political equality (which both liberals and socialists believe in a version of) and that is different from economic equality (which socialists support in opposition to liberals).
As an example that I guess is also low-effort, if someone insists that the "real" definition of "socialism" is when the state makes you share your toothbrush, you can try explaining to them that there's a difference between personal and private property, but if they just insist that "you'll own nothing" is "socialism," perhaps it would be better to simply say, "Then by your definition, I am not a 'socialist,' because that is not my position. What I advocate for is 'economic democracy' [i.e. extending the democratic process to economic operations that are currently dictatorially governed by the bourgeoisie]" instead, just for the sake of being able to speak with them. This sort of thing can come up with many terms, like the definition of private property. If they demand that "private property" be defined as the US legal system (for example) currently defines it, then you can say you aren't interested in "private property" by that definition because you want to distinguish between "personal property" and, for the sake of being able to communicate, let's call it "profit-making property."
Does this make sense?
Totally, yes thanks.